Allowed

Visakh C.R., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Feb 2024Bail Appl./229/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application by the sole accused in a rape case registered on the complaint of a woman he met through Instagram. The Public Prosecutor did not seriously oppose but sought his presence for investigation. Bail was granted subject to surrender, interrogation, bond conditions, and restrictions against contacting the complainant or entering her locality.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender, interrogation, Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, and conditions restricting contact with complainant and entry into her area.

Visakh C.R., Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 229 OF 2024

¶5

CRIME NO.1220/2023 OF Aryancode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶6

VISAKH C.R.,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. CHANDRAN,
KUZHIVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
ANCHUMARAMKALA,
VELLARADA P.O.,
VELLARADA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695505
BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶7

RESPONDENT/STATE :

¶8

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

¶9

OTHER PRESENT:

¶10

SR.PP-SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BA No.229 of 2024

O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the sole accused in Crime No.1220 of 2023 of Aryancode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered under Sections 450, 376, 376(2)(n), 354, 354A(1)(i), 354A(1)(ii) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶16

The prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner got acquainted with the defacto complainant through instagram, and on 25.09.2023 at 11.00 p.m., the petitioner reached her house in the absence of her husband, and forcibly committed rape on her. In September 2023 also, he committed rape on her on four days. He recorded her video and shared it with a neighbour named Vineeth, and he also sexually assaulted her.

¶17

BA No.229 of 2024

¶18

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶20

and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

¶22

application.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the victim is a 27 year old lady having two children. The sexual allegations made against the petitioner was only consensual, and no offence under Section 376 of IPC is attracted. Only when her husband knew about their relationship, she put up a false complaint against the petitioner.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor would submit on

¶25

instructions, that investigation is progressing. The statement of the defacto complainant would indicate that, the petitioner reached the house of the defacto complainant, and the sexual acts, if any committed, were only consensual. But, for the purpose of investigation, presence of the petitioner/accused is necessary. Ensuring his presence before the Investigating Officer for the

¶26

BA No.229 of 2024

¶27

¶28

purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to allow this application on the following terms;

¶29

(i) The petitioner shall surrender before the

¶30

Investigating Officer on or before 08.02.2024, and subject himself for interrogation.

¶31

(ii) The Investigating Officer can collect all materials/evidence relevant for the purpose of investigation, from the petitioner.

¶32

(iii) In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

¶33

(iv) Thereafter the petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when directed.

¶34

(v) The petitioner shall not enter the limits of Aryancode Police Station within the jurisdiction of which, the defacto complainant is residing with her family.

¶35

(vi) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the defacto complainant or her family members, either directly or indirectly.

¶36

BA No.229 of 2024

¶37

¶38

(vii) The petitioner shall not influence the

¶39

witnesses, or tamper with the investigation.

¶40

(viii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence

¶41

while on bail.

¶42

(ix) In case of violation of these conditions, the investigating officer can approach the jurisdictional Magistrate to get his bail cancelled, in accordance with law.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶45

rkj

Visakh C.R., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Visakh C.R., 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

Sivaprakasan.K Vs State of Kerala

Greshwin a.W., Vs State of Kerala

Anujith Alias Jithu., Vs State of Kerala

Sushama Mavila, Vs State of Kerala

Alvin Raj S.M., Vs State of Kerala

Devika Balakrishnan, Vs State of Kerala