Allowed

Sujesh Sudhakaran, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2023Bail Appl./2690/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was disposed of, granting bail to the petitioner accused of offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 377 IPC. Despite the prima facie evidence of consent, the court imposed eight strict conditions including cooperation with investigation, surrender, and non-interference to protect personal liberty.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs 1,00,000/ with two solvent sureties, subject to eight specific conditions including cooperation with investigation and appearance schedu

Sujesh Sudhakaran, Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 2690 OF 2023

¶4

CRIME NO.227/2023 OF CUMBUMMETTU POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶5

SUJESH SUDHAKARAN,
AGED 22 YEARS
INCHAKKATTU HOUSE, KOMBAMUKKU, RAMAKKALMEDU P.O.,
RAMAKKAL METTU, IDUKKI., PIN – 685552

¶6

BY ADVS.
K.S.ARUNDAS
ABIJITH.K
AMBILY JOSHY

¶7

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶8

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

¶9

2XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

¶10

BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
A.R.NIMOD
M.A.AUGUSTINE(K/000511/2005)
BRITTO ALEX(K/000542/2013)
SR PP - ADV C S HRITHWIK

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

BAIL APPL. NO. 2690 OF 2023

¶13

2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.227/2023 of

¶16

Cumbummettu Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 376, 3762(n) and 377 of the IPC.

¶17

The prosecution case is as follows: The petitioner and the defacto complainant came to know each other through a social media platform named ‘Instagram’ during the month of December 2022. Later, their relationship developed into a love affair. It is alleged that on various occasions, by making a promise of marriage, the petitioner had sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant. It is alleged that on some of the occasions, the defacto complainant was forced to have oral sex as well. Later, even though a notice of intended marriage under the Special Marriage Act was moved on 07.03.2023 before the Sub Registrar, the petitioner backed out from

¶18

said marriage. The crime was registered in such circumstances based on the information furnished by the defacto complainant on 14.04.2023. As the petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

¶19

the investigation of the said case, this application is submitted.

¶20

BAIL APPL. NO. 2690 OF 2023

¶21

3

¶22

Heard Sri.K.S.Arundas, learned counsel for the

¶23

petitioner, Sri.M.A.Augustine, learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and Sri.C.S. Hrithwik, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further

¶25

submits that the allegations raised against the petitioner are false. According to him, the sexual intercourse between the parties was based on mutual consent. Both of them were in a love affair, and the petitioner had the intention to marry her, and the notice of the intended marriage was also caused to be issued in such circumstances. However, after the notice was moved, the petitioner learned that the defacto complainant was a victim in another case and in some other cases. The withdrawal from the marriage was in

¶26

such circumstances, and the complaint with false allegations happened to be made consequently. The petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and shall abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and the

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO. 2690 OF 2023

¶29

4

¶30

learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would

¶31

oppose the aforesaid application. The learned counsel for the

¶32

defacto complainant submits that the petitioner started the relationship with the complainant after knowing that the defacto complainant was a victim in another rape case. It is pointed out that the relationship started by the petitioner herein, as pre-planned by him, and to substantiate the same, it is submitted by the learned counsel that, after the registration of the crime, the accused in the earlier crime in which the defacto complainant was a victim, contacted the defacto complainant and is threatening the defacto complainant to settle this case. In such circumstances, dismissal of the application is sought. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms that the defacto complainant was a victim in Crime No.1061/2022 of Nedumkandam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2) and 376(2)(n) of IPC and under Section 66 of IT Act and also in Crime No.192/2022 of Cumbummettu Police Station under Section 341, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor also stoutly opposes the

¶33

BAIL APPL. NO. 2690 OF 2023

¶34

5

¶35

application by pointing out that the investigation is at its preliminary stage.

¶36

I have gone through the records, including the First Information Statement of the victim. It is discernible from the said statement that the petitioner and the defacto complainant had sexual intercourse on various occasions at various places. Even though there is an allegation of unnatural sex as they had oral sex, even thereafter, there was sexual intercourse. From the reading of the statement given by the defacto complainant as a whole, it creates an impression that all the sexual intercourse was based on mutual consent. However, it is contended by the defacto complainant that the consent obtained by the petitioner was based on a false promise of marriage.

¶37

The explanation of the petitioner in this regard is that the petitioner had the intention to marry the defacto complainant. Only later, when he came to know about the involvement of the defacto complainant in the other cases, he backed out. Since being a bail application, I do not venture to adjudicate upon the question

¶38

BAIL APPL. NO. 2690 OF 2023

¶39

6

¶40

as to whether the promise made by the petitioner to marry the defacto complainant was genuine or not. It is a matter of investigation. However, the contents of the statement of the victim prima facie reveal sexual intercourse based on consent. Parties are major, mature, and capable of understanding the consequences of their acts. In such circumstances, taking note of all probabilities and possibilities in this case, I am of the view that an order for protecting the personal liberty of the petitioner is to be passed. At the same time, it is also to be ensured that the petitioner is cooperating with the investigation.

¶41

In such circumstances, this application is disposed of with the following conditions:

¶42

i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting himself to interrogation.

¶43

ii) After interrogation, the petitioner shall be released on bail on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioner executing a bond for Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent

¶44

¶45

BAIL APPL. NO. 2690 OF 2023

¶46

sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer

¶47

iii) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the

¶48

investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded.

¶49

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Saturday until the filing of the final report.

¶50

v) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶51

vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

¶52

vii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

¶53

viii) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶54

¶55

BAIL APPL. NO. 2690 OF 2023

¶56

ix) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the

¶57

Jurisdictional court, and an affidavit to that effect shall be filed if he does not have a passport.

¶58

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶59

Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶60

scs

Sujesh Sudhakaran, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujesh Sudhakaran, 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

Baiju Radhakrishanan Vs the Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization

James, S/O. Thomas, Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by the

Haris Vs State of Kerala

Shine Daniel, Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafoor T.P., Vs State of Kerala