Allowed

Biju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Mar 2018Bail Appl./824/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC filed by an accused charged with rape, cheating, and criminal breach of trust. The court found prima facie prima facie evidence of consensual relations but granted bail subject to strict conditions including medical examination, passport surrender, and non-contact with the complainant.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was released on bail upon executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including medical examination, passport surrender, and non-contact with the complaina

Biju Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 824 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 10/2018 OF POTHENCODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

BIJU, AGED 31, S/O.VIDHYADHARAN, ATHAM VEEDU, CHARUMOODU DESOM, AYIROOPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED.

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHENCODE CIRCLE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.B. UDAYAKUMAR.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs. 08/03/2018.

¶15

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

¶16

Bail Application No.824 of 2018

¶17

Dated this the 6^th day of March, 2018

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

The petitioner is the accused in the case registered as Crime No.10/2018 of Pothencode Police Station under Sections 406, 316 and 376 IPC.

¶22

The prosecution case is as follows: The petitioner is the son of the uncle of the de facto complainant. The husband of the de facto complainant was working abroad. They were not on good terms. During that period, the petitoner and the de facto complainant got on intimate terms. About ten years ago, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant. The petitioner

¶23

B.A.824/18

¶24

¶25

had then told her that he would marry her if her husband left her. At that time, the petitioner had taken the nude photogaphs and videos of the de facto complainant without her knowledge. He used to threaten her showing such photogaphs and to have sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the de facto complainant became pregnant. But the petitioner caused her to miscarry by giving her some pills. Even therafter, the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant continued. Meanwhile, the husband of the de facto complainant got ill and bedridden. The petitioner promised the de fact complainant that he would obtain a job for her abroad. He obtained from her a total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for that purpose. He did not arrange any job for her abroad. He also did not return the money to her. During the period between 15.5.2007 and 20.8.2017 the petitioner had committed sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant several times by showing her the nude photogaphs of her and by threatening her. Thus, he has committed the

¶26

B.A.824/18

¶27

¶28

offences punishlable under Sections 316, 406 and 376 IPC.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

¶30

The first information statement given to the police by the de facto complainant reveals that she was on intimate terms with the petitoner. Her relationship with him began about ten years ago. The facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, indicate that it was consensual sex between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. The case diary contains the medical examination record of the de facto complainant. It reveals that she had given statement to the doctor that it was with her full consent that the petitioner had sexual intercourse with her. Even according to the de facto complainant, the first instance of rape on her by the petitioner was ten years ago, in the year 2007. In these circumstances, I find that the discretion of the court can be exercised in favour of the petitioner to grant him pre-arrest bail provided he shall cooperate with the investigation of the case.

¶31

B.A.824/18

¶32

¶33

In the result, the petition is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

¶34

i. The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of his arrest by police in Crime No.10/2018 of Pothencode Police Station.

¶35

ii. The Investigating Officer is entitled to interrogate the petitioner before releasing him on bail.

¶36

iii.The Investigating Officer is entitled to subject the petitioner to medical examination including potency test and the petitioner shall co-operate for such examination.

¶37

iv. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 9.00 AM and 11.00 AM on all Saturdays for a period of six months after being released on bail or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶38

v. The petitioner shall not in any manner intimidate or influence the de facto complainant or other prosecution witnesses in the case. The petitioner shall not in any manner, through phone or otherwise, contact the de facto complainant.

¶39

B.A.824/18

¶40

¶41

vi.The petitioner shall surrender his passport in the Magistrate's Court concerned within three days of his release on bail. If he does not possess any passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the Magistrate's Court concerned within that period.

¶42

vii. The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the jurisdictional court concerned.

¶43

viii. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by him in writing to do so.

¶44

ix. If the petitioner violates any of the conditions of bail, it is open to the Court having jurisdiction over the case to cancel the bail without any further orders from this Court but in accordance with law.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶47

okb.

¶48

//True copy// P.A. to Judge

Biju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju 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

V.P.Hisham Vs State of Kerala

Faleel v. Vs Sho, Kannur Town Police Station

Thomas @ Tomy Vs State of Kerala

Sujin Vs State of Kerala

Aseer A.P Vs State of Kerala

P.J.Ancily, Son of Joseph Vs State of Kerala