IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J.
Umesh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Bail Application No. 7170 of 2023
Decided On : 01-09-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for pre-arrest bail (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's evaluation of evidence (Para 6) |
| 4. conditions of bail granted (Para 7) |
ORDER :
1. This application is filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. The applicant is the accused No. 2 in Crime No. 1030/2023 of Thiruvalla Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 376 D of the Indian Penal Code and 67 a of the Information Technology Act.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the applicant and the accused No. 1 brought the victim to a hotel at Thiruvalla, stupefied her after giving liquor, engaged in sexual intercourse, took her sexually explicit video and transmitted the same on electronic media.
4. I have heard Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. Sangeetha Raj N.R. the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated 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.
6. I went through the FIS as well as Annexure-3 WhatsApp screen-shot between the applicant and the victim. WhatsApp screen-shot would show that the victim voluntarily went to the hotel knowing very well that the applicant and the accused No. 1 were there in the hotel. The WhatsApp chat would further show that the sex they had at the hotel was consensual in nature. Annexure -4 receipt for payment of Rs.5,000/- coupled with her WhatsApp chat would show that the applicant paid Rs.5,000/- to the victim after the alleged incident of rape. Moreover, there is a delay of 12 days in lodging the FIR. 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.
7. In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:
(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.
(iii) The applicant shall appear before the 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.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.
(v) 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.
(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.
(vii) 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.
Grant of pre-arrest bail is justified when prosecution lacks substantial evidence to connect the accused to the crime.
The court held that pre-arrest bail is warranted when custodial interrogation isn't necessary and evidence does not substantiate the accusations.
The court affirmed the right to bail under conditions when no substantial evidence links the accused to the criminal act.
Pre-arrest bail may be granted if the court finds no necessity for custodial interrogation and insufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime.
Pre-arrest bail granted based on insufficient grounds for custodial interrogation and emphasis on applicant's cooperation with investigation.
A court may grant pre-arrest bail if the evidence does not substantiate claims against the accused, ensuring cooperation with ongoing investigations.
Pre-arrest bail can be granted under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. when the prosecution's allegations appear improbable, warranting careful consideration of the situation.
The court found the custodial interrogation unnecessary and granted pre-arrest bail based on the nature of the relationship and lack of evidence.
The court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is not automatically granted and must consider the gravity of the allegations and the necessity of investigation.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.