Allowed

Pavin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Sept 2016Bail Appl./5417/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a pre-arrest bail application. The court found the complaint suspicious due to the victim's claim of repeated intercourse under false marriage promises. Investigation deemed practically complete. Bail granted on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail executed bond with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each. Conditions include reporting every Tuesday and restraint from leaving jurisdiction or contacting witnesses.

Pavin 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/16TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5417 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 272/2016 OF VANITHA POLICE STATION IRINJALAKUDA, TRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED PERSON :

¶8

PAVIN, AGED 32 YEARS,

¶9

S/O DHARMAN, CHALLIYIL HOUSE, ANCHANGADI DESOM, PADINJARE VEMBALLOER P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.L.BITTO

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE OF KERALA/ COMPLAINANT.:

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANITHA POLICE STATION, IRINJALAKUDA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶13

*ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED :

¶14

2. RAKHI, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. KARTHIKEYAN, KANINATT HUSE, ALA DESOM, KOTHAPARAMBU P.O., SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLORE TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 10/8/2016 IN CRL.M.A. 8264/2016 IN BA 5417/2016

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

P.UBAID, J.

¶20

---------------------------------------

¶21

B.A No.5417 of 2016

¶22

---------------------------------------

¶23

Dated this the 7^th day of September, 2016

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.1930/2016 of the Kodungallur Police Station, registered under Section 376, 450 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

The victim of offence in this case is a lady aged 32 years. The prosecution case is that on a false promise that he would marry her, the petitioner subjected the victim to sexual intercourse on many occasions at her own house, since March 2008. When he retracted from the promise, she brought a complaint alleging rape. The victim of offence was impleaded as additional second respondent in this proceeding. She appeared in person before me and submitted that she does not have any grievance or complaint, and that the whole dispute now stands resolved forever. She also filed affidavit in Court to that effect, that she has no complaint now. Of course, the

¶27

B.A No.5417 of 2016 2

¶28

Court cannot now act upon the affidavit mechanically. However, on a perusal of the entire materials I find that the complaint is in fact suspicious. A lady can be subjected to sexual intercourse once or twice on a false promise of marriage. But here, her case is that she was so subjected on many occasions. It is quite unappealing that she believed on many occasions that he would marry her. Hence, I find that the whole complaint is suspicious.

¶29

On a perusal of the case diary I find that the investigation is practically over. The investigating officer has collected the required materials for a prosecution, if at all the allegations are believable. In the above circumstances I am inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶30

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 50,000/- (Rupees₹ fifty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. Bail is granted on condition that

¶31

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on

¶32

¶33

B.A No.5417 of 2016

¶34

all Tuesdays for a period of two months.

¶35

b) The petitioner shall not leave the limits of Kodungallur Police Station, for a period of two months.

¶36

c) The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶37

P.UBAID JUDGE

¶38

Pavin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavin 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Feni Azees Vs Station House Officer

Abdul Rauf.K.M.G Vs the Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Amla Johnson Vs State of Kerala

Sindhu Vs State of Kerala

Thankappan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

T.S. Arjunan Vs State of Kerala