Allowed

Sreejith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jun 2016Bail Appl./3955/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by an accused charged with rape-related offences under the IPC and cyber crimes under the IT Act. The court noted delays in the complaint and lack of scientific evidence, granting bail with conditions to report to police and avoid contact with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on bond with two sureties of ₹50,000 each on conditions to report weekly and avoid contact with witnesses.

Sreejith 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 P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/3RD ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3955 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 176/2016 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

SREEJITH, AGED 29 YEARS, NAM BELUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.HEMALATHA SRI.BINU GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

B.A No.3955 of 2016

¶18

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶19

Dated this the 24^th June, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.176 of 2016 of the Ambalathara Police Station registered under Sections 376, 451, 354, 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code, and under Section 66E and 67A of the I.T Act. He seeks regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application filed by him for regular bail was dismissed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate on 09.05.2016. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 08.05.2016.

¶22

The prosecution case is that, some two years back, the petitioner herein subjected the de facto complainant to sexual intercourse under threat at his house saying that he would morph her photographs, and thereafter on 24.11.2015, the petitioner trespassed into her house and molested her, which she resisted. But the accused, who could not win over the victim on 24.11.2015, started black-mailing her and even disseminated her nude

¶23

B.A No.3955 of 2016

¶24

¶25

photographs through his mobile phone. The victim made complaint only on 6.5.2016.

¶26

This application for regular bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is still in progress, and that if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the investigation.

¶27

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary, I find that the complaint does not contain any satisfactory explanation for the long delay. The incident alleged some two years back. Things appear to be suspicious. The incident on 24.11.2015 is not an instance of rape, but only an attempt to molest the victim, which she resisted, and her own case is that when the petitioner tried to molest her, she beat him with a stick. Thus, things are to some extent doubtful. Anyway, let the factual aspects be gone into thoroughly during trial. If at all the consent was vitiated, or if at all the alleged intercourse was under threat, let such things be proved appropriately and convincingly during trial. In the present circumstances where investigation is practically over, I feel it not

¶28

B.A No.3955 of 2016

¶29

¶30

appropriate to detain him in custody any more. As regards the alleged dissemination of nude photographs through his mobile phone, it appears that the prosecution does not have any definite and satisfactory material. The prosecution has not so far been able to collect any scientific evidence substantiating such allegations.

¶31

In the result, this application for bail is allowed. The petitioner will be released on bail on his their executing a bond with two solvent sureties for ₹ 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate having jurisdiction or the learned Special Judge, as the case may be. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶32

a. The petitioner shall report before the Circle Inspector of Police, Kasaragod between 10.00 am and 11 a.m on all Wednesdays for a period of two months.

¶33

b. The petitioner shall not enter the limits of the Ambalathara Police Station during the said period.

¶34

c. The petitioner shall not in any manner

¶35

B.A No.3955 of 2016

¶36

¶37

influence or intimidate the witnesses and he shall not have any contact with the de facto complainant and other material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

/True copy/

P.S to Judge

Sreejith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreejith 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

A.K.Babeesh Vs the Station House Officer, Kozhikode

K.H. Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala

Jayaraj Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Kerala

Alex Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Shine Madhu Vs State of Kerala