High Court dismissed pre-arrest bail application of sole accused facing charges under Sections 495 and 376 IPC, holding him not a fit case for bail given the nature of allegations regarding induced consensual relationship.
Bail application dismissed. Petitioner remained in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/20TH PHALGUNA, 1937
Bail Appl..No. 530 of 2016
CRIME NO. 11/2016 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
SUBASH BABU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.BABUKUTTAN PILLAI, PULLAZHATHU VEEDU, CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGAM, KARUNGAPALLY, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 121.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
B.A.No.530 of 2016
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2016
ORDER
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.11/2016 of Manjeri Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 495 and Section 376 of IPC.
facto complainant was produced before the learned Magistrate, she did not have a case as now set up, the
B.A.No.530 of 2016 2
learned counsel contended that the present case is an after thought. It appears that in the course of investigation, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl has been recorded. It has been referred that 'Tali' was tied on to her make her believe that he has married her. The implication, it appears, is that her consent was obtained by going through a form of a marriage. She has also referred to the physical relationship that they had.
this is not a fit case for granting the benefit of pre arrest bail to the petitioner.
The bail application is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE
AD
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is a fit person to be granted pre-arrest bail under Sections 495 and 376 IPC.
Whether the offence under Section 376 IPC is made out based on the allegations of induced relationship.
Subash Babu
State of Kerala
Sunil Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
