Allowed

Biju Denson v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2017Bail Appl./3886/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offences including rape and cheating. The court granted bail due to the petitioner's 50% disability and the fact that monetary disputes were settled, deeming custodial interrogation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with bond of ₹1,00,000 and two sureties; directing surrender within 10 days and weekly reporting.

Biju Denson Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/22ND JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

BAIL APPL..NO. 3886 OF 2017 (A)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN BAIL APPL. 7751/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA CRIME NO. 633/2014 OF KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1^ST ACCUSED:

¶8

BIJU DENSON, 35 YEARS, S/O DENSON, EDAYILUMURI THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, EDAPPARIYARAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADINAMKULAM POLICE STATION-PIN- 689583 PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. K.B. SONY.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶16

................................................................ B.A. No. 3886 of 2017

¶17

............................................................... Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2017.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Petitioner is the first accused in Crime

¶21

No.633/2014 of Kadinamkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P. C. The 2^nd accused is the father of the petitioner. The case against the 2^nd accused has been quashed by this Court.

¶22

The defacto complainant is a handicapped woman, who had visited the Divine Centre at Potta. She had registered her name in the website of the Divine Centre

¶23

B.A.No. 3886 of 2017

¶24

-: 2 :-

¶25

by inviting matrimonial relationship. It is alleged that the accused contacted her and expressed his willingness to marry the defacto complainant . Mutual visits were made by

¶26

the parties at their houses. Thereafter, there were frequent contacts between the family members. It is alleged that the petitioner, by assuring that he would marry the defacto complainant, had subjected the defacto complainant to sexual intercourse at 2.30 p.m. on 20.3.2012 at her house. It is also alleged that the accused, by way of several instalments, obtained an amount of ₹4,00,000/- from the mother of the defacto complainant .

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced Annexure F Medical Report and Annexure G Disability Certificate of the petitioner. Annexure F shows that the petitioner has suffered spontaneous intra cerebral hemorrhage and thereby, he has suffered left hemiplegia.

¶29

B.A.No. 3886 of 2017

¶30

-: 3 :-

¶31

For a prolonged period he was under the medical treatment at Neuro Surgery ICU of the Pushpa Giri Medical College Hospital, Tiruvalla. Annexure G is the Disability Certificate which shows that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability of 50% in moderate category. Annexure G is issued by the District Medical Board.

¶32

The report filed by the learned Public Prosecutor shows that the monetary transaction was settled between the parties and that the petitioner has repaid an amount of ₹4,00,000/- to the complainant. It was on that payment, the case against the 2^nd accused was quashed by this Court on a settlement between the parties. It is true that the matter is settled. At the same time, this Court cannot endorse the settlement of such a grievous offence between the petitioner and the defacto complainant . Considering the physical disability of the petitioner and the seriousness of the illness to which he is put, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the

¶33

B.A.No. 3886 of 2017

¶34

-: 4 :-

¶35

continued investigation of this case. Therefore, this is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner, because of the subsequent developments in the matter.

¶36

In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)

¶37

with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-

¶38

(i) The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within 10 days from today.

¶39

(ii) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Mondays and Thursdays commencing from 19.06.2017, for a period of three months.

¶40

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with

¶41

B.A.No. 3886 of 2017

¶42

-: 5 :-

¶43

the evidence or influence witnesses. (iv) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶44

(v) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.

¶45

It is made clear that the violation of any of the

¶46

conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail.

¶47

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶48

ul/-

¶49

// true copy //

¶50

P.S. to Judge.

Biju Denson v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju Denson 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

E.v.Ali Vs Kombi Ayishu Hajumma

Mathews Litto Jacob Vs St.Georges Church

K.J. John Vs K.J. Mathai

P.K.Sajimon Vs Savithri

Woodlands Estate Apartment Owners Association Vs E.S.Sabukuttan

Elsy Ouseph Vs Fr.Cletus