Allowed

Bijeesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Feb 2016Bail Appl./123/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam granted bail to the sole accused accused of rape (IPC 326, 308 r/w 34 IPC) subject to conditions including bond execution, regular appearance to investigation officer, and prohibitions on entering police station limits or intimidating witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to execution of bond with sureties, appearance to investigation officer, and restrictions on movement and interference.

Bijeesh Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/19TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 123 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 2672/2015 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

BIJEESH, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SANKARANKUTTY, PERUMPIL HOUSE, MATHOP, KANIPAYOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA.T.Y.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

B.A.No.123 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.2672/2015 of Kunnamkulam Police Station for offences

¶20

punishable under Sections 326, 308 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶21

The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner had developed a close acquaintance with the de facto complainant and had been making sexual overtures towards her, exploiting the situation that her husband was abroad. One day it is stated that she had opened the doors for his entry. Thereafter on 06.10.2015 he came to the house and had committed rape of her. Subsequently on a week prior to the lodging of the present complaint, the accused trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and he was trashed by her father and other relatives. Ultimately, the complaint was lodged by her on 31.12.2015 alleging that she was raped by the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on

¶22

B.A.No.123 of 2016

¶23

¶24

01.01.2016 and is in custody since then.

¶25

Even though very serious allegation of rape is alleged against the petitioner herein, it appears that they are known to each to each other. There is an allegation that exploiting the acquaintance, the rape was committed. Investigation has substantially progressed.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in fact he was assaulted by the father and brother of the de facto complainant on 27.12.2015 at the residence, wherein he had gone, on the invitation of the de facto complainant. He had gone to the hospital on 28.12.2015, evidenced by Annexure-A and thereafter the crime was registered. It is alleged that as a retaliation, the present crime was alleged against him.

¶27

In the light of the above nature of allegation and the further fact that the investigation has substantially progressed, including the recording of Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of the de facto complainant, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶28

B.A.No.123 of 2016

¶29

¶30

(a) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶31

(b) He shall appear before the Investigation Officer on all Tuesdays and Fridays between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till the final report is filed.

¶32

(c) Except of the compliance of the above conditions, he shall not enter the limits of Kunnamkulam Police Station till the final report is filed.

¶33

(d) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant and the witnesses nor shall he interfere in the process of investigation.

¶34

The bail application is allowed.

¶35

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

B.A.No.123 of 2016

Bijeesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijeesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jithu @ Jithin Lal Vs State of Kerala

Binoy Raj Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Mathews Stephen Vs State of Kerala

Shihab Vs State of Kerala

S.Pradeep Vs State of Kerala