Allowed

Shibin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jul 2016Bail Appl./5086/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted regular bail to the sole accused in a case involving sexual intercourse allegations and suicide attempt. The Court observed that the offence was not actual rape due to enduring love and reduced circumstances, noting the parties had decided to marry under the Special Marriage Act. Bail was released on conditions pending marriage registration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with two sureties for Rs.50,000 each under conditions to report on Thursdays, stay within Thiruvananthapuram district, and avoid contact with witnesses until marriage is re

Shibin Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2016/24TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5086 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 877/2016 OF KOVALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHIBIN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.K.S.BABU, AMBATTU HOUSE, TC NO.29/679(1), THAIKKAPPALLY LANE, PALKULANGARA, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶12

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. (CRIME NO.877/2016 OF KOVALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT).

¶13

2. SATHYA PRIYA,

¶14

AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.MEENAKSHI, TC NO.21/986, MELE MANGATTUKONAM, PADIPPURA VEEDU, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 541. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA R. R2 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

msv/

P. UBAID, J.

B.A.No.5086 of 2016

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2016

¶20

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.877/2016 of the Kovalam Police Station, registered under Sections 376(1)(2)(b), 406 and 306 IPC. 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, Neyyattinkara, on 30.06.2016. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 29.06.2016.

¶21

The victim of offence in this case is a girl aged 20 years. The prosecution case is that during the period between June, 2015 and June, 2016, the petitioner herein subjected the victim to sexual intercourse on many occasions, on a promise that he would marry her, but he neglected her after exploiting her sexually, and in such a circumstance, the girl made an attempt to commit suicide. It is not known how a prosecution is possible under Section 306 IPC. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the victim and the petitioner herein had been in

¶22

¶23

B.A.No.5086 of 2016

¶24

intense love, and they had also decided to marry. But the victim was compelled by the parents to make a complaint alleging rape against the petitioner herein.

¶25

The victim of offence is the 2^nd respondent herein. She has filed an affidavit to the effect that she happened to prefer the complaint on some misapprehension, or when compelled by the parents, who initially objected the relationship. She appeared in court and submitted before me that even now she loves the petitioner, and she is confident that he would marry her. She also submitted that she and the petitioner have decided to solemnise the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, despite objections from the family members. The petitioner has filed an affidavit, duly attested by the Jail Superintendent, to the effect that he would marry the victim within no time after he is released on bail. Of course, on hearing both sides, and the submissions made by the victim in open court, I find that this is not in fact a

¶26

case of actual rape. The victim and the petitioner had been in intense love for some time, and they had even undergone some process of marriage, which is not acceptable under the law. The parties belong to different religions. So, a marriage is not possible under the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties will have to

¶27

¶28

B.A.No.5086 of 2016

¶29

get married under the Special Marriage Act. It appears that the girl brought a complaint alleging rape against the petitioner herein in compelling circumstances, or she made such a complaint on some misapprehension, when the relationship somehow strained. But, now, the whole problem stands resolved, and the parties have decided to have their marriage registered under the Special Marriage Act. In the above situation, I feel it inappropriate to detain the petitioner any more in custody. The investigation process is also practically over. The affidavit filed by the petitioner is recorded as part of the proceeding. When the investigation is practically over, it would be appropriate to release the petitioner on bail, of course subject to certain conditions.

¶30

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

¶31

a. The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer, between 10.00 am to 11 a.m on all Thursdays.

¶32

¶33

B.A.No.5086 of 2016

¶34

b. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdictional limits of

¶35

the Thiruvananthapuram revenue district.

¶36

c. The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the witnesses, and he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise, except for the purpose of registration of marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

¶37

The above conditions will be in force only till the marriage is registered under the Special Marriage Act.

¶38

Sd/P. UBAID, JUDGE

¶39

¶40

// True Copy // P.A. to Judge

Shibin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibin 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

Subair Kallekkekkal Vs the Administrator

Mohammed Hadil Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Babu M.S. Vs State of Kerala

Vincent Vs State of Kerala

Akil.v.Raj Vs the Station House Officer, Balaramapuram Police Station

Anil Kumar Vs Station House Officer