Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 13 November, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 13 November, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KER 812

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

   TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1940

                      Bail Appl..No. 7160 of 2018

       CRIME NO. 640/2011 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR



PETITIONER/ACCUSED:


             SANTHOSH, AGED 34 YEARS,
             S/O.THOMAS, THANDIYEKKAL HOUSE,
             KURIYACHIRA ST.RAPHEL STREET,
             OLLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC
             SMTSHEEBA JOSEPH
             SRI.S.SREEJITH (S-3453)



RESPONDENT/S:
       1      STATE OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN -682031.

      2      SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
             POLICE STATION, OLLUR,
             THRISSUR DST. -680306.




             SRI AMJAD ALI SR PP


THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.11.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl..No. 7160 of 2018        2




                                 ORDER

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The applicant herein is the accused in S.C.No.307 of 2012 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur. He is charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 366A and 376 of the IPC.

3. Prosecution allegation is that the applicant herein kidnapped a minor girl aged 17 years in the year 2011 from the lawful custody of her parents and subjected her to sexual intercourse.

4. It appears that the applicant failed to appear on 7.7.2018, on which day, the case was posted. His bail was cancelled and non bailable warrant was issued. On 15.9.2018, he was arrested and was later remanded. The application for bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge was of the view that it would not be feasible to enlarge the applicant on bail as it was on record that he had jumped bail thrice on earlier occasions.

Bail Appl..No. 7160 of 2018 3

5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that it was due to the lapse of his counsel that there was no representation on the date on which the case was posted. According to the learned counsel, the applicant had married the victim immediately after registration of the crime, on 15.12.2012, and they are living together with their two children. He refers to Annexure-A1 marriage certificate and Annexure-A2 birth certificate. It is further submitted that he has been undergoing incarceration for about 60 days and it is prayed that he be released.

6. Opposing the prayer, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that no leniency is warranted.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant one more opportunity to the applicant to contest the proceedings. It is not as if once bail is cancelled, applicant is not entitled to get bail thereafter. As provided under the proviso to Section 446A of the Code, the applicant is entitled to seek bail in the manner stated therein. However, in order to ensure his presence, stringent conditions can be imposed. Bail Appl..No. 7160 of 2018 4

8. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

1). The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer on the first Monday of every month between 9 am and 10 am till the conclusion of trial.

2). He shall not leave the State of Kerala without obtaining the permission from the trial court.

3). He shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; If release of the passport is required at a later period, he shall be at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court having jurisdiction.

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

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE IAP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court