Allowed

Lithinmon Latheesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Nov 2019Bail Appl./7419/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a bail application under Section 376 IPC. Acknowledging significant factual discrepancies in the victim’s FI statement regarding the location of the incident and confirming the victim’s lack of opposition, the Court granted bail subject to a non-approach order prohibiting the accused from residing near the victim’s location.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner was released on bail for Rs. 40,000 with two sureties, subject to a condition restricting residence near the victim's location.

Lithinmon Latheesh 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.7419 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1996/2019 DATED 30-09-2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

CRIME NO.1274/2019 OF Ernakulam North Police Station , Ernakulam

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

LITHINMON LATHEESH AGED 25 YEARS S/O. LATHEESH, 46 CHIRA, CHAKKACHAN PAKA, KAINADY P.O., NELLAMPERI, KAVALAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682 017.

¶14

3 VICTIM X

¶15

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B.A. No. 7419 of 2019

¶18

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

B.A. No. 7419 of 2019

¶21

Dated this the 15^th day of November, 2019

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner herein has been arrayed the sole accused in the instant Crime No.1274 of 2019 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, Ernakulam, which has been registered for the offences punishable under Secs. 376 of IPC. The said crime has been registered on the basis of the F.I Statement given by the lady victim, aged 19 years on 03-08-2019 at about 9.15 p.m in respect of the alleged incidents, which happened on 06-07-2019 at about 12.30 p.m in the afternoon.

¶24

The prosecution case in short, as disclosed in the abovesaid F.I Statement given by the lady victim is to the effect that the lady victim aged 19 years, acquainted with the petitioner/accused, aged 25 years, through social media like instagram and that she was modelling and she had sent her photographs to the petitioner as requested by him and that on 06-07-2019 on petitioner's request she had come down from Palakkad to Ernakulam South Railway Station

¶25

B.A. No. 7419 of 2019

¶26

¶27

and thereafter the petitioner/accused had taken her to a lodge called 'Pearl Residency' near to the Ernakulam south railway station and there he had forcible sexual intercourse with her, despite her protest and later she came to know that the petitioner is married. Incidentally, she has stated that she became close to the petitioner on account of his assurance that he would marry her etc,. The Police after investigation found that there is no lodge called 'Pearl residency' near Ernakulam south railway station and it was found that the petitioner/accused and the lady victim had actually taken a room in 'Classic Tourist Home' near to Ernakulam North Railway Station on the same day at about the same time and that the alleged incident would have taken place there etc,.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless and further that the lady victim has now sworn to Anx.A2 affidavit that the petitioner and the lady victim had an affair and that she knew very well right from the beginning the petitioner is already a married man and that later due to the hospitalisation and such other reasons, the petitioner was not able to have frequent contact with her and she developed

¶29

B.A. No. 7419 of 2019

¶30

¶31

misgivings and misunderstandings about him and then she had made the instant complaint to the Police based on misunderstandings etc, and that she is not interested to pursue the proceedings any further and that she is not opposing the plea for anticipatory bail etc,.

¶32

The learned Prosecutor has opposed the plea for anticipatory bail and has also pointed out that there is every possibility of the petitioner intimidating and influencing the witnesses, more particularly, the lady victim, if he is let out on bail.

¶33

After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen that the Police themselves now realized that some of the vital factual allegations made by the victim in her F.I. Statement are factually wrong about the scene of occurrence of the offence and that there is no lodge called 'Pearl Residency' near to Ernakulm South railway station and that both them taken a room in a Classic Tourist Home, which is near to Ernakulam North railway station and that the incident would have happened there. Further the abovesaid stand taken by the lady victim that she is not opposed to the plea for anticipatory bail could also

¶34

B.A. No. 7419 of 2019

¶35

¶36

duly taken into account. Moreover, it is seen that it is now admitted case of the Police that there is substantial divergence in the very prosecution story, regarding the scene of occurrence.

¶37

Taking into account of all these aspects, this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not really necessary or warranted for the smooth and effective conduct of the investigation in this crime. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is residing permanently at Changanassery and the lady victim is residing at Palakkad. However in order to the apprehension raised by the prosecution, it is proposed to order as safeguard that the petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station, where the lady victim is residing or studying until the completion of the investigation process in this case, subject to certain exceptions, which will be dealt with hereinafter.

¶38

Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/(Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on his furnishing 2 solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the competent

¶39

B.A. No. 7419 of 2019

¶40

¶41

court concerned. However, the grant of bail shall be subject to the

¶42

following conditions:

¶43

(i). The petitioner will report before the Investigating Officer concerned at any time between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 noon on every 2^nd and 4^th Saturdays for the next 3 months. Thereafter the petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by him.

¶44

(ii). The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the defacto complainant/ lady victim, witnesses; nor shall tamper with the evidence.

¶45

(iii). The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶46

(iv). The petitioner will fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the conduct of the above interrogation process.

¶47

(v). The petitioner should also co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the conduct of any potency test, if it is so insisted by the Investigating Officer.

¶48

(vi). The petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the limits of the Police Station within where the lady defacto complainant is residing until the completion of the investigation process in this case, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer in this case or in any other crimes and for attending to any courts in connection with this case or any other cases or for contacting his advocate/lawyer, etc.

¶49

(vii). However, if there is any emergent and genuine reasons for the petitioner to go to that area, then he may do so, but only with prior permission of the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶50

B.A. No. 7419 of 2019

¶51

¶52

If there is any violation of the above said conditions by the petitioner, then the jurisdictional court concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.

¶53

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.

¶54

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶55

KAS

Lithinmon Latheesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lithinmon Latheesh 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

Santhosh.M.K Vs a.S.Aruja

Suneer Chieripparamban Vs Rubeena

Kunnummal Saleem Vs Nasiya

Satheesan v., Vs Leena

Baiju V.P Vs Sharmini

Bijulal Vs State of Kerala