Allowed

Xxx v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jan 2022Bail Appl./316/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a rape-related FIR where the petitioner, aged 62, had been in custody for 44 days. The Family dispute alleged to be the cause for registration of the case was noted. The High Court of Kerala examined age, custody duration, and final report.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on execution of bond with two sureties for Rs.50,000 each, subject to strict conditions regarding summons compliance and non-interference.

Xxx 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.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 1ST MAGHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 316 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.1309/2021 OF Mundakayam Police Station, Kottayam

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADVS.
K.B.ARUNKUMAR
POOJA K.S.

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶11

2STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MUNDAKAYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686513
3XXX
AGED 51 YEARS
XXXXXXX
KOTTAYAM
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI. NOUSHAD K.A, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

BAIL APPL. NO. 316 OF 2022 2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This is an application for regular bail.

¶16

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1309/2021 of Mundakkayam police station, Kottayam district, alleging commission of offences under Sections 354A(1)(2), 376, 341, 323 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Allegation against the petitioner is that he molested the de facto complainant and also committed rape on her on 15.11.2021, after restraining her and beating her up.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the de facto complainant is none other than the younger sister of the petitioner’s wife. It is submitted that the petitioner

¶19

is aged 62 and the de facto complainant is aged 50. It is submitted that the de facto complainant is keeping in her possession and enjoyment certain property which was sought to be partitioned by the wife of the petitioner and other relatives. It is submitted that the crime has been registered solely on account of the aforesaid dispute regarding family property and no incident as alleged is ever taken place. It is submitted that the petitioner is residing in Alappuzha district and the de facto complainant is residing in Kottayam district. It is submitted that

¶20

BAIL APPL. NO. 316 OF 2022 3

¶21

final report has already been filed in the matter and the continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for 44 days.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, would submit with reference to the statement given by the de facto complainant that there are clear allegations of the offence of rape against the petitioner. It is submitted that the investigation revealed the role of the petitioner in the matter. It is also submitted that the case of dispute over the family property is being cooked up only to escape from the allegation.

¶23

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the age of the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that he has already been in custody for 44 days and further that the final report has already been filed in the matter, I am of the opinion that continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary in the matter. I am therefore of the opinion that the petitioner can be released on bail subject to strict conditions. Accordingly, this application for bail is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) The petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent

¶25

BAIL APPL. NO. 316 OF 2022 4

¶26

sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

¶27

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No. 1309/2021 of Mundakkayam Police station whenever called upon to do so;

¶28

(iii) The petitioners shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the de facto complainant or any witness in Crime No.1309/2021 of Mundakkayam police station;

¶29

(iv) The petitioner shall not enter the local limits of the Mundakkayam police station where the de facto complainant is residing except for the purpose of complying with condition No. (ii) above or any summons or warrant from any court or any direction from any official authority.

¶30

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

¶31

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.1309/2021 of Mundakkayam police station may file an application before the jurisdictional court, for cancellation of bail.

¶32

SD/-

¶33

GOPINATH P.

¶34

ajt

Xxx v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xxx 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

Noushad A.K. Vs State of Kerala

Syed Ali Vs State of Kerala

Shaji, Vs State of Kerala

Sayid Abuthahir Vs the State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Pregmesh. M. P Vs State of Kerala