Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
Deepthi, W/o. Shajil C. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The bail application was filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the second accused in a case involving serious allegations, including rape, extortion, and related offenses (!) (!) (!) .
The prosecution alleges that the first accused, who is the petitioner’s husband, committed multiple rapes and obtained nude photographs and videos of the de facto complainant, also demanding money and threatening her and her children (!) (!) .
The petitioner is accused of being falsely implicated and has no direct involvement in the alleged crimes, with evidence indicating that her role in financial transactions was at the behest of the first accused (!) (!) (!) .
The court considered the credibility of the allegations, noting that the de facto complainant is a mature adult who had engaged in physical relationships with the first accused, which complicates the prima facie assessment of the allegations (!) (!) .
The court found that the allegations against the petitioner do not warrant custodial interrogation, especially given the absence of sufficient evidence to justify such measures at this stage (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the State bears the burden to demonstrate the necessity of custodial interrogation beyond mere assertions, and in this case, the State failed to do so (!) (!) .
Accordingly, the court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner under specific conditions, including appearance for interrogation, cooperation with investigation, and restrictions against influencing witnesses or committing similar offenses (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The bail conditions also include a bond requirement of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, and the petitioner must adhere to all conditions, with the court retaining jurisdiction to modify or revoke bail if necessary (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with this case.
ORDER :
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS ’).
2. Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.559/2025 of Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur registered for the offences punishable under sections 351(2), 296(b) and 318(4) r/w Section 3 (5) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS ’) and 67(a) of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short ‘IT Act’).
3. The prosecution alleges that the first accused had, after obtaining certain nude photographs of the de facto complainant during the period from 01.01.2024 to 31.12.2024 committed rape on her at Sharjah and again in a rented house in Kerala and thereafter threatened the defacto complainant to transfer Rs.9,50,000/- to the Bank account of the second accused and also threatened to kill the children of the de facto complainant and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. I have heard Sri.M.R.Dhanil, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Sreeja V, the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri.Vivek P K, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner
The court held that mere assertions by the State regarding the need for custodial interrogation are insufficient; a stronger evidentiary basis is required to justify such measures.
The court ruled that consensual relationships turning sour do not justify rape allegations or automatic custodial interrogation, emphasizing the need for substantial evidence before arrest.
The court ruled that while serious allegations exist, custodial interrogation is not necessary for the accused, allowing pre-arrest bail with conditions.
The court held that custodial interrogation is not necessary despite serious allegations, allowing pre-arrest bail based on the circumstances of the case.
The Court's discretion for anticipatory bail hinges on the nature of offenses and necessity for custodial interrogation, requiring substantial justification from the State.
The existence of the victim's existing marriage negates the prima facie basis for allegations of sexual assault under false promise of marriage.
Court must evaluate the need for custodial interrogation against the nature of allegations when considering bail applications.
The court stressed on following principles laid down by the Apex Court regarding bail and interrogations, ensuring rights of the accused are upheld.
Anticipatory bail considerations include the nature of the offence and necessity for custodial interrogation, with the State required to provide substantial justification for such interrogation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
