Allowed

Kusalaksha v. Station House Officer

Kerala HC15 Feb 2016Bail Appl./388/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order granting bail to the sole accused criminal rape case. The court observed that the investigation had substantially progressed and issued bail subject to execution of a monetary bond, weekly appearance before the IO, and an undertaking not to intimidate witnesses or commit further offences.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is allowed; the petitioner is granted bail subject to the execution of a bond with sureties, weekly reporting, and an undertaking not to intimidate witnesses.

Kusalaksha Vs Station House Officer — 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 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/26TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 388 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 756/2015 OF MANJESWAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

KUSALAKSHA, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.RAMA, ALABE HOUSE, VORKADY, SUKATHAKATTA, KASARAGOD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAJESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD 671 121.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

SUNIL THOMAS, J

¶17

B.A.NO.388 OF 2016

¶18

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime

¶21

No.756/2015 of Manjeshwar Police Station for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The allegation of the prosecution is that, the petitioner offered to marry the defacto complainant and under the guise of the false promise had committed rape on her on 25.12.2015 at about 4 pm. The petitioner herein was arrested on 02.01.2016 and is in custody since then. He seeks bail.

¶23

Heard and examined the records.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶25

that a complaint was laid falsely after coming to know that he is already proposed to marry to another lady.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application, however, submitted that Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of the defacto complainant has been recorded.

¶27

B.A.NO.388 OF 2016 2

¶28

The investigation has substantially progressed. Having regard to these facts, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:-

¶29

(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.

¶30

(b) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Thursdays between 9 am and 10 am for a period of two months from the date of his release or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶31

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

¶32

(d) He shall not get involved in any other identical offences.

¶33

¶34

B.A.NO.388 OF 2016

¶35

The bail application is allowed as above.

¶36

sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶37

R.AV

¶38

//True Copy//

¶39

PA to Judge

Kusalaksha v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kusalaksha v. Station House Officer

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

Hariprasad Vs State of Kerala

Ummar K.P Vs State of Kerala

Zacharia Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Pramod K Vs State of Kerala

Chandu Vs State of Kerala

Suresh @ Kopra Suresh Vs State of Kerala