Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY,THE22D DAY OF OCTOBER201330TH ASWINA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 6942 of 2013 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 981/2013 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:- ---------------------------------------------- SIMRAJ, AGED26YEARS,S/O.SOMARAJAN, HOUSE NO.37, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM COLONY, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM P.O., KURUCHI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2210-2013,ALONG WITH B.A.NO.6948 OF2013 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.BHAVADASAN, J.
-------------------------------------------------- Bail Application Nos.6942 & 6948 OF2013-------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2013. ORDER
Strange are the ways of fate. The petitioner now stands implicated in two crimes namely, Crime Nos.853 and 981 of 2013 of Mavelikkara Police Station for identical offences. It would appear that the petitioner and the victim were in love and the victim voluntarily went along with him and that resulted in the de facto complainant filing a complaint for man missing and the girl was brought back. The victim was aged only 17 years at the relevant time.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that a Habeas Corpus petition was filed before this Court and the girl when produced before the Court was sent along with her parents. Soon thereafter, she went along with the petitioner and that lead to the registration of the second crime.
3. The petitioner would say that he was compelled to take the victim as she insisted to go along with him and to keep away B.A.Nos.6942 & 6948/2013 2 from her house. At any rate, it is pointed that the petitioner has been in custody from 04.09.2013 onwards and his continued custody is unnecessary.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petitions. He only pointed out that the investigation is going on.
5. True, the girl was aged only 17 years when the first incident occurred. However, it needs to be noticed that she had voluntarily gone along with the petitioner. This Court is given to understand that their marriage was conducted. Whether the marriage was valid and whether of the act of the petitioner was proper or not are not matters to be considered at this stage. It could not be said that the petitioner alone is at fault. Whatever that be, the petitioner has been in custody from 04.09.2013 onwards and a good part of the investigation must have been completed by now. The continued custody of the petitioner therefore appears to be unnecessary. The applications are allowed on the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) in each of the cases with two solvent B.A.Nos.6942 & 6948/2013 3 sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. ii) The Court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by him. iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders. iv) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness. v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to it in law. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A.to Judge.