Allowed

Mahesh Kumar S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Sept 2016Bail Appl./7063/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by an accused charged with rape and an atroity under the SC/ST Act for long-term extramarital relations alleged against him. Finding investigation complete, the court granted bail with conditions including reporting, limited movement, avoiding the victim's village, and no contact with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with bond of two sureties for ₹50,000 each and four specific conditions for two months, subject to jurisdiction of magistrate or special judge.

Mahesh Kumar S. Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/8TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7063 of 2016 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 930/2016 OF PANGODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

MAHESH KUMAR S., S/O. SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 29, LETHA BHAVAN, AMBEDKAR COLONY, BHARATHANNOOR P.O, PANGODU VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.S.SREEJITH, SMT.K.MALINI.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

P.UBAID, J.

¶16

--------------------------------------B.A No.7063 of 2016 ---------------------------------------

¶17

Dated this the 30^th day of September, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.930/2016 of the Pangod Police Station, registered under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)XII of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 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 II, Nedumangad, on 23.9.2016. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 17.9.2016.

¶20

The victim of offence in this case is a lady aged 27 years. She belongs to Scheduled Caste. The petitioner herein is her next door neighbour. They had been in intense love since 2010. The complainant's grievance is that under such pretext and a false promise that he would marry her, the petitioner subjected her to sexual intercourse on many occasions, and after 2014 also she was so subjected to such

¶21

B.A No.7063 of 2016 2

¶22

unholy union on such promise. It appears that the victim brought complaint alleging rape when the petitioner married another woman. The complaint itself shows that their affair started in 2010 and in 2010 itself they had unholy sexual union on may occasions at different places. After a brake for four years they resumed their affair in 2014, and it is alleged that one day in 2014, at the house being newly constructed by the petitioner, the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse by the petitioner. Things are to an extent suspicious. A lady could be deceived once or twice on a false promise. But here the affair lasted for years, and it is unbelievable that for years, on many occasions, the lady could be deceived by the petitioner on a false promise that he would marry her. The complaint itself shows that she thought of making a complaint when the petitioner married another lady. There is reason to believe that everything that transpired between them was in fact consensual. Whether the consent was in any manner vitiated by any false promise, or otherwise, is a matter for probe during trial.

¶23

This application for regular bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is still in progress, and that if the accused is now released, he will

¶24

¶25

B.A No.7063 of 2016

¶26

definitely obstruct the investigation.

¶27

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary and the report of the investigating officer, I find that investigation in this case is practically over, and that the petitioner can be now released on appropriate conditions. I find that the Investigating Officer has already questioned the material witnesses, and has collected the necessary materials for a prosecution. I do not find the necessity of continued detention of the petitioner in custody. However, some reasonable conditions for bail are felt necessary in the particular facts and circumstances.

¶28

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 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;

¶29

a. The petitioner shall report before the Circle Inspector of Police, Nedumangad between 10 am and 11 am on all Thursdays for a period of two months.

¶30

¶31

B.A No.7063 of 2016

¶32

b. The petitioner shall not leave the limits of

¶33

Pangod Police Station for two months.

¶34

c. The petitioner shall not enter the revenue

¶35

village where the house of the victim is situated, till investigation process is over.

¶36

d. 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.

¶37

Forward a copy of this order to the Circle Inspector of Police, Nedumangad, who will report compliance of the conditions, directly to the learned Magistrate.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

Mahesh Kumar S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar S. 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

Sibin John Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Rakesh Vs State of Kerala

Nafeesath Vs State of Kerala

Sajeevan Vs State of Kerala