Allowed

Shiju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Mar 2022Bail Appl./512/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows bail application No. 512 of 2022 for an accused charged with rape and sexual assault under the IPC and IT Act. The High Court granted anticipatory bail subject to specific conditions including execution of bond, appearance before investigation officers, and surrender of electronic equipment.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions including bond execution, appearance before IO, surrender of electronic devices, and non-interference with investigation.

Shiju 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

MONDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 512 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHIJU AGED 39 YEARS S/O. PADMANABHAN, KURUPPATH HOUSE, ANNUNNIPARAMB, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505.

¶8

BY ADVS. K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON KAVERY S THAMPI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031. 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676505. 3 ADDL.R3. X IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24/02/2022 IN CRL.M.A. NO.1/2022.

¶11

SRI. M.C. ASHI (PP)

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

BAIL APPL. NO. 512 OF 2022

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.18/2022 of Malappuram Police Station, Malappuram district alleging commission of offences under Sections 354(A)(1)(ii), 376, 450 and 506 of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.

¶17

The allegation against the petitioner is that, the petitioner criminally intimidated the defacto complainant and sexually assaulted her and committed rape on her on several occasions after threatening her.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contends of the FIS even if believed to be true indicates that the petitioner and the defacto complainant were in a relationship. It is submitted that both the petitioner and the defacto complainant are married and that the wife of the petitioner had filed a complaint against the defacto complainant alleging that the defacto complainant was threatening the wife of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that even if all the allegations are accepted as true, the relationship between the petitioner and the defacto complainant

¶19

¶20

BAIL APPL. NO. 512 OF 2022

¶21

could only be termed as a consensual relationship between two consenting adults. It is submitted that no element of rape is involved in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner is an employee of BSNL and that his custodial interrogation may not be necessary for the purpose of any investigation.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant vehemently opposes the grant of bail. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. It is submitted that if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every chance of the defacto complainant being influenced or intimidated. It is submitted that the petitioner shall not be granted pre-arrest bail. The learned Public Prosecutor also submits that since the offenses under the Information Technology Act is alleged to have committed by the petitioner, his mobile phone and other electronic equipments will have to be seized for the purpose of investigation.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant also submits that the petitioner has been

¶24

BAIL APPL. NO. 512 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

continuously threatening the defacto complainant.

¶27

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. A proper investigation can be carried out on insisting on the appearance of the petitioner before the investigating officer on specific dates along with any electronic equipments that may be required by the investigating officer for the purpose of investigation.

¶28

In the result, this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.18/2022 of Malappuram Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

¶29

(i) 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;

¶30

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.18/2022 of Malappuram Police Station at 10.00 AM on 15.03.2022 and 16.03.2022 and thereafter whenever called upon to do so;

¶31

¶32

BAIL APPL. NO. 512 OF 2022

¶33

(iii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation every manner and shall also surrender any electronic equipments including mobile phones that may be required for the process of investigation

¶34

(iv) Petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.18/2022 of Malappuram Police Station;

¶35

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

¶36

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.18/2022 of Malappuram Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

Shiju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiju 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

Abdul Latheef Vs the State of Kerala

Sarath K.S. Vs State of Kerala

Ajithkumar Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Nivil Vs State of Kerala

Krishnakumar, Vs State of Kerala