Allowed

Arun v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Apr 2019Bail Appl./1249/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of rape under Section 376 IPC. The court noted the close relationship prior to the incident and settlement of disputes. Bail was granted subject to conditions including an undertaking against influencing witnesses and cooperating with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to be released upon arrest after interrogation, subject to an undertaking to cooperate with investigation, not influence witnesses, and a

Arun Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1249 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 146/2017 OF Guruvayoor Police Station , Thrissur

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

ARUN

¶9

AGED 32 YEARS S/O.GOPI, KOLLAVALAPPIL HOUSE, KURANJIYOOR DESOM, POOKODE, GURUVAYOOR, KERALA.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.N.K.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.N.U.HARIKRISHNA

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031(CRIME NO.146/2017 OF GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT).

¶14

2 MINI (VICTIM) AGED 37 YEARS, D/O APPUKUTTAN, KILINAMPURATH HOUSE, KATTAKAMBAL VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR-680503

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.C.K.PRASAD-PP

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.1249/2019

ORDER

1.Petitioner seeks bail under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. He is the accused in crime No.146/2017 of Guruvayoor police station. The charge against him is that he committed rape punishable under Sec.376 of IPC.

¶23

2.Heard Sri.N.U.Harikrishna, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.C.K.Prasad, the learned public prosecutor and Sri.Arun Krishnan, the learned counsel for the first informant who is the second respondent in the application.

¶24

3.I have perused the case diary. What is stated in the FI statement is that the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent had sexual intercourse for over six years. It is alleged that he had sexual intercourse with her several times under a promise to marry her. It is also alleged that he had broken the promise. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations referred to above are more

¶25

B.A.1249/2019

¶26

¶27

close to consensual sexual acts and not rape. The submission cannot be brushed aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent submit that the disputes have been settled and that the marriage between the petitioner and the second respondent is scheduled to be solemnised next month. An affidavit is also seen filed by the second respondent to the effect that the dispute has been settled and that she and the petitioner are going to marry. In these circumstances, I find it appropriate to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest. I do not consider custodial interrogation necessary for an effective investigation of the case.

¶28

4.The application is allowed. If arrested in connection with crime No.146/2017 of Guruvayoor police station, the petitioner shall be released on bail, after interrogation, if any, on his executing a bond for Rs 75,000/- (seventy five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The

¶29

B.A.1249/2019

¶30

¶31

petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. He shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer. The petitioner shall report to the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 am on every Wednesday for a period of two months or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. The petitioner shall not intimidate or try to influence witnesses. He shall not destroy or tamper with evidence. The court/magistrate having jurisdiction is hereby empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law if any of the conditions mentioned above is violated. If the petitioner surrenders before the magistrate, this order will cease to have effect and the learned magistrate will pass appropriate orders as if this order has not been passed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

A.M.BABU Judge

¶34

Mrcs/3.4.

Arun v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun 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

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Subhash, Vs State of Kerala

Liju, Vs State of Kerala

Ganesan, Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudheen, Vs State of Kerala