Allowed

Ansar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Sept 2016Bail Appl./5427/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case involving allegations of sexual offences and cheating. The court noted the police had deleted serious charges based on findings of a consensual relationship and allowed bail to prevent unjust custody and harass. bail was granted with conditions to report to police and avoid contacting witnesses or entering the victim's vi

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond with two sureties for Rs. 50,000 each, conditioned to report to police and not enter the victim's village or influence witnesses.

Ansar 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

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/14TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5427 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 914/2016 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

ANSAR S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, KOORIKATTIL HOUSE, VEERAMANGALAM AMSOM, MANGODE DESOM, CHERPULASSERY, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P.UBAID, J.

¶16

--------------------------------------B.A No.5427 of 2016

¶17

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

¶18

Dated this the 8th day of September, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

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.914/2016 of the Thrikkakara Police Station. The crime was initially registered under Sections 354, 354(c), 354 (D), 376, 323, 387, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 66(e), 66(c) and 66(d) of the Information Technology Act. The victim of offence in this case is a lady aged 35 years. She and the petitioner herein had been in love, and they had also decided to marry. But subsequently they fell apart due to some difference of opinion, after having all sorts of contacts during their love making period, and at that juncture the lady brought a complaint against him. Now the police report shows that during investigation the police found out that everything that transpired between the victim and the petitioner herein was purely consensual, and that the allegations made under Section 376 IPC or the allegation of outrage of modesty are

¶21

¶22

B.A No.5427 of 2016

¶23

false or baseless. The police accordingly submitted a report in the court below and the main Sections like 376 IPC stand deleted. Now as revealed by the police report, investigation is practically proceeding only under Section 419 IPC, simply as a case of breach of promise, or cheating. It is not exactly known what is the cheating alleged in this case, or how exactly was the victim deceived or cheated by the petitioner herein. They had been in love for years, they had all sorts of contacts, and when some difference of opinion cropped up in their unholy relationship, the lady brought a complaint alleging rape. This is what is revealed by the report submitted by the investigating officer. In the above factual situation, I feel it appropriate to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner. It would be unjust and inappropriate to detain him in custody.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

B.A No.5427 of 2016

¶27

a) The petitioner shall report before the

¶28

investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Saturdays for a period of two months.

¶29

b) The petitioner shall not enter the

¶30

revenue village where the house of the victim is situated, till trial of the case is over.

¶31

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.

¶32

P.UBAID JUDGE

¶33

Ansar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansar 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

Vineeth Vs State of Kerala

Rajeevan T.K. Vs State of Kerala

Kannan Vs State of Kerala

Sivadasan Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Sajeesh Vs State of Kerala