Allowed

Sreekumar.M.N v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Sept 2017Bail Appl./5912/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 CrPC allowed for accused in rape case. Court noted substantial investigation completed. Bail granted subject to strict conditions including appearance schedule, passport surrender, no contact with victim, and ban on entering Palakkad District.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, subject to specific conditions including appearance, no contact with victim, and no entry into Palakkad District.

Sreekumar.M.N 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

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/17TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5912 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1517/2017 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 09-08-2017

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 553/2017 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ANGAMALY DATED 22-07-2017 CRIME NO. 717/2017 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶8

APPLICANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

SREEKUMAR.M.N., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.NEELAKANDAKURUP, "SOPANAM MADASSERY", MAIKKAD P.O., THURUTHUSSERY, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.C.JAYAKIRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.SURESH BABU THOMAS

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 0809-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

VPS

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶17

¶18

B.A No.5912 of 2017

¶19

¶20

Dated this the 8^th day of September, 2017

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

1.This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail.

¶23

2.The applicant has been arrayed as the accused in Crime No.717 of 2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-B, 342, 376(2)(k), 323, 506(1) IPC.

¶24

3.According to the prosecution, the applicant herein is the President of an apartment association by name “Apple Residency”. The de facto complainant was working as Floor Manager in the said apartment. The prosecution alleges that on the pretext of verification of accounts the de facto complainant was summoned on 11.4.2017 to room No. D 20 of the said apartment and she was sexually assaulted. Thereafter on 14.4.2017, she was asked to come to room No. D9 and was sexually molested. She was threatened and

¶25

B.A Nos.5912/2017

¶26

¶27

asked to keep her mouth shut. Later, on 6.5.2017, the victim was asked to go to Door No B 15 and the applicant who followed her to the apartment, locked the door and committed the offence of rape.

¶28

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

5.Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that after the application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by this Court, the applicant had surrendered on 16.7.2017 and since then he is in custody. According to the learned counsel, false allegations are raised at the instance of one M.K. George, the manager of the said apartment complex, against whom allegation of misappropriation of amounts have been alleged. Learned counsel would further submit that the applicant has been in custody for the past more than 52 days and according to him substantial part of the investigation is over.

¶30

6.Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits

¶31

B.A Nos.5912/2017

¶32

¶33

that the victim was working as Floor Manager and the applicant herein using his influence had committed rape on her in a brutal manner. It is further submitted that the 164 statement of the victim has been recorded.

¶34

7.I have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and have gone through the Case Diary which is handed over for perusal. Though the allegations raised against the applicant are extremely grave, the fact that he was arrested on 17.7.2017 cannot be lost sight of. As submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, the 164 statement of the victim has been recorded and substantial part of the investigation is over. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it does not appear to me that further incarceration of the applicant is required for investigation. Necessary safeguards can be incorporated to safeguard the interest of the prosecution as well.

¶35

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

¶36

B.A Nos.5912/2017

¶37

¶38

1. The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

¶39

1. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., for 2 months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶40

1. The applicant shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶41

1. The applicant shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

¶42

1. The applicant shall surrender his passport before the court below or if he does not have one he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release.

¶43

1. The applicant shall not contact or communicate with the victim or members of her family directly or indirectly.He shall not enter or reside within the territorial limits of the Palakkad District. If for any extraordinary reason the applicant requires to enter the limits of the District, previous permission has to be obtained from the jurisdictional Court.

¶44

In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

¶45

B.A Nos.5912/2017

¶46

¶47

the jurisdictional court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail

¶48

in accordance with the law.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN. V., JUDGE

¶51

ps/8/9/17

¶52

//True copy//

¶53

PS TO JUDGE

Sreekumar.M.N v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekumar.M.N 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.R.Devadas Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate

Bhaskaran.U Vs State of Kerala

Shobhakumary C.H. Vs Nagaveni K.

Bijeesh Vs State of Kerala

Sasikiran Vs the Excise Inspector

Nijil Vs State of Kerala