Allowed

Madhu K.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jul 2017Bail Appl./3228/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Bail Application allowing pre-arrest bail to the accused in a rape case. Court imposes stringent conditions including a bond of Rs.1 lakh with two sureties, prohibition on leaving India, and strict orders against tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, subject to stringent conditions including prohibition on leaving India and tampering with evidence.

Madhu K.K Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, 19TH DAY OF OF JULY 2017/28TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3228 of 2017 () -------------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO. 516/2017 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION , TRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------

¶8

MADHU K.K S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, MELOOR DESOM, MELOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR RURAL, KERALA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.SANTHARAM SRI.P.S.SISHOY SRI.LAKSHMEESH.S.KAMATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR RURAL, PIN-680121.

¶13

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. MAYA.M.N.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

SHIRCY V., J.

¶16

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = B.A. No. 3228 of 2017 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2017

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No. 516 of

¶19

2017 of Irinjalakuda Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 450 and 506(1) of IPC, apprehending arrest by the police, has filed this application for pre-arrest bail.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that on 23.10.2016 at 15 hours while the de faco complainant was alone at her residential house at Chanthakunnu, the petitioner trespassed into the house and committed rape on her and thereafter threatened her with dire consequences to prevent her from divulging the same to anyone and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation of the case is only in progress and the C.D.file

¶22

BA 3228/17

¶23

¶24

has already been submitted before the court for consideration of the petition filed by this petitioner to quash the proceedings against him. Hence, he is unable to furnish the entire details of the case in this regard.

¶25

But the learned counsel counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the de facto complainant who approached him for financial assistance. He was a partner doing business with the husband of the de facto complainant. Now the relationship of the de facto complainant and her husband has strained. When she approached for financial assistance, this petitioner could not help her. Infuriated by the same, she has filed this false complaint against him on 16.3.2017 alleging that he committed rape on her on 23.10.2016 at her residence itself. The petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after lodging the false

¶26

BA 3228/17

¶27

¶28

complaint against him, she has filed the affidavit before the Sessions Court. From the records it is revealed that she has filed an affidavit (Annexure-A2) before the Sessions Court when the bail application of the petitioner was considered by the learned Sessions Judge, Thrissur. In that affidavit she has stated that she has no complaints against this petitioner. Thereafter, she has also filed the affidavit (Annexure-A4) attested by a Notary Public. In that affidavit also she has stated that the complaint filed against the petitioner is false. The genuineness and correctness of the statement given by her in the affidavits cannot be ascertained or verified at this stage.

¶29

But, still in the nature of the accusations levelled against the petitioner as well as other facts and circumstances involved in this case, especially the fact that the complaint has been lodged by the de facto complainant after a long delay of five months of the alleged incident, I

¶30

BA 3228/17

¶31

¶32

think that this petition can be allowed subject to certain stringent conditions. Moreover, I do not find any reason to consider that it is absolutely necessary for the investigating agency to have him in custody to proceed with the investigation in the case which is already well in progress. Such being the case, I think that pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶33

1). The petitioner shall be released on bail after interrogation in the event of his arrest on the same day on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) by him with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶34

2). He shall not leave India without prior permission of the learned Sessions Judge, Ernakulam.

¶35

3). He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for

¶36

interrogation as and when required by him.

¶37

BA 3228/17

¶38

¶39

4). He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the

¶40

witnesses, nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶41

5). He shall not commit any offence or indulge in any

¶42

prejudicial activity while on bail.

¶43

6). In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

¶44

the learned Magistrate concerned is empowered to cancel

¶45

the bail in accordance with the law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE

True copy

P.S.To Judge

Madhu K.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu K.K 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

Mohammed Suhair Vs State of Kerala

Shabeer Ali Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Vasanthy Amma Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Vijyadas Vs State of Kerala

Faisal Salim Vs State of Kerala