Allowed

Dr.Aravind Madanan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2023Bail Appl./885/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to an orthopaedic surgeon accused of rape under IPC sections 376 and 376(1), noting no necessary custodial interrogation despite allegations of force and a strain on the doctor-patient relationship.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on a bond of ` 1,00,000/ - with two solvent sureties for the like sum each, subject to cooperation with the investigation.

Dr.Aravind Madanan, Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 885 OF 2023

¶4

CRIME NO.124/2023 OF THOPPUMPADY POLICE STAITON

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶6

DR.ARAVIND MADANAN, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.V.M.MADANAN, AGED 36 YEARS, MADHAVAM, VALAPPAD.P.O., NEAR THRIPRAYAR TEMPLE, THRISSUR - 680 567, PIN - 680567 BY ADVS. SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY AMJATH A.R RAHUL S.NATH

¶7

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682031 2 SHAMEENA P.H. D/O HASSAN, CC 22/719 E, 2ND FLOOR, NAVY NAGAR, MUNDAMVELI, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 27/02/2023 IN CRL.M.A 1/2023 BY ADV LIFFY P. FRANCIS SRI.M.P. PRASANTH, P.P.,

¶9

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.885/2023

: 2 :

ORDER

Dated this the 9^th day of March, 2023

¶14

This application is filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶15

The applicant is the accused in Crime No.124/2023 of Thoppumpady Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 323, 354, 376, 376(2)(n) and 451 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

I have heard Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. M.P. Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

¶17

The prosecution case, in short, is that on a day in the month of November, 2021, at Emerald Hotel, Kadavanthra, another day in the month of October, 2022 at Hotel Belvether at Thoppumpady and on 21.01.2023 at the apartment of the victim, the applicant raped the victim without her consent and against her will and thereby committed the offence.

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated

¶19

B.A.No.885/2023

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence , he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

¶22

The applicant is an Orthopaedic Surgeon. The victim is a divorcee. The victim was the patient of the applicant. The reading of the F.I. Statement would show that the patient-Doctor relationship developed and they became close friends. According to the victim, the first incident happened in the month of November, 2021 at a Hotel at Kadvanthra and the second incident happened in the month of October, 2022 at another hotel at Thoppumpady. There is absolutely no explanation why immediately after the first two incidents, complaint was not filed. That apart, the hotel room at Belvether Hotel at Thoppumpady, where the second incident was alleged to have take place, was taken by the victim in her name. So far as the third incident is concerned,

¶23

B.A.No.885/2023

¶24

: 4 :

¶25

according to the victim, the applicant went to her house and forcefully raped her. Her own version was that initially they consumed alcohol together and it was thereafter the applicant forcefully raped her. All the sequence of events would give an impression that the applicant and the victim had consensual sex.. The applicant is a Doctor by profession. He has no criminal antecedents. Considering the allegations levelled against the applicant , his custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary. For these reasons, it is a fit case where pre-arrest bail can be granted to the applicant.

¶26

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest on executing a bond for `1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.

¶28

(ii) The applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.

¶29

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the

¶30

B.A.No.885/2023

¶31

: 5 :

¶32

investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

¶33

(iv) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigating officer to undergo the potency test.

¶34

(v) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

¶35

(vi) The applicant shall not 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.

¶36

(vii) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

¶37

(viii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Dr. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

ncd

B.A.No.885/2023

: 6 :

APPENDIX

ANNEXURE-1

A TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.124/2023 OF

¶46

THOPPUMPADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

Dr.Aravind Madanan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Aravind Madanan, 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

Meethin Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Aziz, Vs State of Kerala

Usman B. M Vs State of Kerala

Balodra Bonju Babu Vs State of Kerala

A.V Thulasi, Vs State of Kerala

Chandran.P.K Vs State of Kerala