Allowed

Sudeesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Sept 2016Bail Appl./6622/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application from an accused charged with rape and POCSO offences. Finding the investigation practically complete, bail was granted on conditions regarding reporting, jurisdiction, and witness intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted regular bail on executing a bond with two solvent sureties for ₹1,00,000 each and complying with reporting and jurisdiction conditions.

Sudeesh 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

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/29TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6622 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 948/2016 OF VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SUDEESH, S/O. MANI, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT PARAPAYYIL HOUSE, KAKANAD, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.T.JOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

2. S.I. OF POLICE, VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DIST.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU. S.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

P.UBAID, J.

¶17

- - - - B.A.No. 6622 of 2016

¶18

¶19

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime

¶22

No. 948 of 2016 of the Vadakkekara Police Station, registered under Sections 376 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, and under Sections 3(a) read with Section 4 and 5(i) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences 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 Sessions Judge on 30.8.2016. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 9.8.2016.

¶23

The victim of offence in this case is a girl aged 17 years. The petitioner herein is a close friend of the victim's brother. The prosecution case is that on a day in April 2016, when the victim was alone in her house, the petitioner came there, and subjected her to sexual intercourse by force at the bedroom of her house, and due

¶24

B.A.No. 6622 of 2016

¶25

-2-

¶26

to such sexual contacts, she became pregnant. She brought complaint on 9.8.2016 at the 4^th month of her pregnancy.

¶27

This application for regular bail is opposed by

¶28

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.

¶29

The petitioner's case is that the petitioner and the victim had been in intense love, that they had sexual contacts for about two years, and that everything that transpired between them was purely consensual. Of course, the medical document shows that the victim had given a statement to the doctor that she had sexual union with the petitioner on many occasions. She brought a complaint alleging rape when she became pregnant in the said relationship. It appears that she thought of making such a complaint when she suspected that the petitioner would abandon her. Of course, it is true that she was aged more than 16 years on the date of the alleged incident, but

¶30

B.A.No. 6622 of 2016

¶31

-3-

¶32

the victim being aged below 18 years, the accused will be liable for prosecution under the provisions of the POCSO Act. Consent will not be material at all in such a prosecution. Anyway, the petitioner has been in custody for about 80 days. On a perusal of the case diary, I find that investigation is practically over. The Police has already collected the required materials for a prosecution. It is submitted that the parties have already taken a decision to solemnize the marriage, and they are waiting for the victim to complete 18 years. She must be now 5 months pregnant. Her own statement is that she had sexual union with the petitioner on many occasions. A girl can be deceived on a promise of marriage once or twice. But it is not known how they could have sexual union for more than one year on many occasions, at her house and elsewhere. Anyway, in the above circumstances where further detention of the petitioner is not necessary, he can be granted bail on appropriate conditions.

¶33

B.A.No. 6622 of 2016

¶34

-4-

¶35

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 1,00,000/- (Rupees₹ One Lakh only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate or the learned Special Judge having jurisdiction. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶36

a. The petitioner shall report before

¶37

the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Mondays for a period of three months.

¶38

b. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdictional limits of Vadakkekara Police Station for three months.

¶39

c. The petitioner shall not in any

¶40

manner influence or intimidate the witnesses.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Sudeesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudeesh 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

Ajimon Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Assari Vs the State of Kerala

Dineshlal Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan v. Vs the State of Kerala

Maheswary Vs State of Kerala

Ravi @ Ravichandran Vs State of Kerala