Allowed

Dr. Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2017Bail Appl./5799/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application for a doctor accused of rape under various sections of the IPC. The court granted bail based on the nature of the charges and the accused's established family life, subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days and is entitled to bail on bond for Rs. 40,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum.

Dr. Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/17TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5799 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 742/2017 OF THRIKKODITHANAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶8

DR. ANILKUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, COLONY NO. 89, RAMANKARY P.O, MAMPUZHAKKARY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SANIL JOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRIKKODITHANAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN 682 031

¶12

*ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED :

¶13

2. P.P.JAYANTHI, D/O.PAPPAN P.P., AGED 45 YEARS, PALAKKULAM VEEDU, MADAPPALLYKARA, THRIKKODITHANAM, AMARA P.O., CHANGANASSERRY, KOTTAYAM - 686546.

¶14

*ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 15/9/2017 IN CRL.MA NO. 9399/2017.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶19

B.A.No.5799 of 2017

¶20

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2017

¶21

ORDER

¶22

1.This application is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶23

2.The petitioner is a Doctor and is currently working as Superintendent of Government Taluk Hospital, Cherthala. He has been arrayed as the accused in Crime 742 of 2017 of the Thrikkodithanam Police Station registered alleging offence punishable under section 312 , 352, 354,420,407,493 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

3.The defacto is a post graduate and is a practicing advocate . The accused is her cousin brother . Accused is aged 47 years and the defacto complainant is two years younger to him. According to the complainant, the accused and the complainant were in love since childhood. On 29.8.2003, the accused committed rape

¶25

B.A.No. 5799 of 2017 2

¶26

on her and she became pregnant. The accused managed to get her pregnancy aborted by forcing her to ride pillion for prolonged hours over an uneven road. Even thereafter on numerous occasions, the accused committed rape on her. She was assured that their marriage would be solemnized on 17.9.2016 but he went back on his word. Her family members were asked to fork out a sum of Rs 20 Lakhs to clear off his debts if he were to marry the complainant. Her photographs, while in compromising positions, were taken by the accused and she was threatened that it would be distributed online. Stating these allegations a complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate which was forwarded to the Police .

¶27

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a married man with two minor children. He refers to Annexure 4 to 7 to buttress his contention. The de facto complainant, being his near relative, is clearly aware of all these facts. The

¶28

B.A.No. 5799 of 2017 3

¶29

allegation of rape committed about 13 years back by the petitioner, who is her own cousin brother, by itself would reveal the falsity of allegation is the submission. Finally it is submitted that both the parties are in their mid 40's and allegations now raised can only be accepted with more than a pinch of salt.

¶30

5.The de facto complainant has entered appearance through her counsel. The learned counsel vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner is still unmarried. The victim was abused by the petitioner all these years and unless a thorough investigation is conducted the actual truth will not see the light of day is, in short, the submission advanced.

¶31

I have heard the learned public prosecutor as well and have gone through the materials.

¶32

7.It is evident that both parties are highly educated, close relatives and in their mid 40's. The petitioner is presently working as Superintendent of the Government Taluk Hospital, Cherthala. The materials produced by

¶33

B.A.No. 5799 of 2017 4

¶34

the petitioner as Annexure 4 to 7 clearly probabilizes his case that he is happily married. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, if he is incarcerated, he will be subjected to ignominy and humiliation. On the basis of the above materials, it does not appear to me that the petitioner is to be subjected to custodial interrogation. He is eminently entitled to secure an order of pre- arrest bail .

¶35

In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶36

i). The petitioner shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶37

ii)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶38

iii)The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly

¶39

B.A.No. 5799 of 2017 5

¶40

make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶41

iv)The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶42

v) If he surrender before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶43

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass

¶44

appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶47

IAP

Dr. Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Anilkumar 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

P.a.Joshy Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Balagopal Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Thanzeel T.S. Vs State of Kerala

Hashim Thangal @ Saidu Muhammed Hashim Thangal Vs State of Kerala

Pramod D. Vs the State of Kerala