Allowed

Rinoj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jan 2018Bail Appl./59/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam allowed bail to petitioner accused of sexual offences and IT Act violation. Court found further detention unwarranted but imposed strict conditions including regular reporting, non-contact with victim, and passport surrender.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions of reporting, non-contact, and passport surrender.

Rinoj Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 21ST POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 59 of 2018

¶6

-----------------------CRIME NO. 3215/2017 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA DISTRICT

¶7

----------

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:-

¶9

------------------

¶10

RINOJ,AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, PADAVALAPPIL HOUSE,DHARMKAKINAR P.O., PAPPINACHERRY VILLAGE,KANNUR.

¶11

BY ADV.SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP

¶12

RESPONDENT/DEFACTO - COMPLAINANT:-:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-01-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶18

B.A.No.59 of 2018

¶19

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2018

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1.This petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

2.The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.3215 of 2017 of the Thiruvalla Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and under Section 67(E) of the IT Act.

¶23

3.The victim in the instant case is a lady aged 22 years and is doing her MSc Food Technology Course. It appears that she got in touch with the petitioner herein through the medium of face book and they became friends. The petitioner used to contact her regularly over phone and they fell in love. It is alleged that the petitioner forwarded some nude pictures of himself to the victim and also demanded that she reciprocate. She was made to believe that he was unmarried and that he would marry her. She is alleged to have heeded to his

¶24

B.A.No.59 of 2018 2

¶25

request and forwarded some of her intimate photographs to him. It is further alleged that on one occasion, while they had traveled together in a bus, the petitioner sexually assaulted her. Still later, on one occasion, the victim was sexually assaulted inside a Cinema Theatre. Later she realised that the petitioner is a married man and he had been duping her. This led to the lodging of the complaint.

¶26

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the victim are adults and the relationship that they had was consensual. It is further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 15.12.2017 and is now in judicial custody.

¶27

5.Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the allegations are grave and the petitioner suppressing the fact that he was married sexually exploited a young lady by inducing her.

¶28

6.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary.

¶29

7.It appears that all medical tests have been conducted and the statement of the victim has been recorded by the learned Magistrate. The investigation appears to have

¶30

B.A.No.59 of 2018 3

¶31

proceeded much.

¶32

8.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the period of incarceration undergone, the stage of investigation and other facts and circumstances, it does not appear to me that further detention of the petitioner is warranted. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶33

1). The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

¶34

2).The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for 2 months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶35

3). The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence. The petitioner shall not contact the victim or her family members.

¶36

4). The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

¶37

5). The petitioner 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. Application for release of the passport, if any, shall be considered by the Trial court at the appropriate stage.

¶38

B.A.No.59 of 2018 4

¶39

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 appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶40

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶41

//True Copy\

¶42

P.A to Judge

¶43

IAP

Rinoj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinoj 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

Dasan Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Gopi Vs Superintendent of Police

Aneesh Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Joseph @ Jose Vs State of Kerala

Deepak.M.G Vs State of Kerala

Jithin Vs State of Kerala