Allowed

Thomaskutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2022Bail Appl./1989/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the bail application of an accused charged with rape and cybercrimes, acquitted him of the charge based on insufficient necessity for continued detention, and released him on bail subject to security deposit and conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall be released on bail subject to execution of a bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties, appearance before the investigating officer, and non-interference with witnesses.

Thomaskutty Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 1989 OF 2022

¶4

(Crime No.23/2022 of Enath Police Station, Pathanamthitta

¶5

district)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THOMASKUTTY AGED 62 YEARS PLAMOOTTIL MELETHIL VEEDU ADAYAPPADU, KADAMPANADU NORTH P.O KADAMPANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691552 BY ADV IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEETHA .S. (SR.PP)

¶10

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

¶12

BAIL APPL. NO.1989 OF 2022

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.23/2022 of Enath Police Station, Pathanamthitta district alleging commission of offences under Sections 376(1) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(E) & 67(A) of the Information Technology Act.

¶15

The allegation against the petitioner is that, on 04.01.2022 at 10.00 AM, the petitioner committed rape of the defacto complainant and recorded it on his mobile phone and thereafter threatened the defacto complainant that the video recording will be shared on social media. It is also alleged that that the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant by stating that if the incident is revealed to anyone, the daughter of the defacto complainant will also be raped in a similar manner.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner is a 62 year old man. It is submitted that even going by the contents of the FIS, any relation between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was purely consensual. It

¶17

¶18

BAIL APPL. NO.1989 OF 2022

¶19

is submitted that the issue arose on account of the fact that the petitioner had shared the intimate video accidentally on a group. It is submitted that even that video itself suggests that there was no element of rape involved. It is submitted that the allegations of threat are cooked up. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for 74 days and his continued detention is not necessary for the purposes of any investigation.

¶20

The learned Public Prosecutor has refers to the circumstances of the case and points out that going by the contents of the FIS and the investigation conducted thus far, the petitioner has clearly committed the offences alleged against him. It is submitted that the video of sexual assault was also shared by the petitioner on social media. It is submitted that no criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail at this point of time.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations against the

¶22

BAIL APPL. NO.1989 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

petitioner, I am inclined to allow this application considering the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for 74 days and since his continued detention is not necessary for the purposes of any investigation. I also take note of the fact that the petitioner is 62 years of age and has an aged mother and wife.

¶25

In the result this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶27

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.23/2022 of Enath Police Station, Pathanamthitta district as and when called upon to do so. (iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.23/2022 of Enath Police Station;

¶28

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶29

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the

¶30

BAIL APPL. NO.1989 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

Investigating officer in Crime No.23/2022 of Enath Police Station, Pathanamthitta district may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶33

SD/-

¶34

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶35

¶36

BAIL APPL. NO.1989 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1989/2022

¶39

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶40

Annexure1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P NO. 167/2022 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ADOOR Annexure2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P NO. 455/2022 DATED 26-02-2022

Thomaskutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomaskutty 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

Saji Vs State of Kerala

Shan Vs State of Kerala

Sangeeth Kumar P Vs State of Kerala

Ahmed Abubakkar, Vs State of Kerala

Rajeesh Vs State of Kerala

Faisal K.V Vs State of Kerala