Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Shainith Kumar.J vs State of Kerala

Shainith Kumar.J vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Feb 21, 2023
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1335702

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Bail Appl./999/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shainith Kumar.J

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the accused in crime no.166/2022 of kasargod vanitha police station, which was registered for offences punishable under sections 376 and 370a(2) of ipc.2. the prosecution case is that, on 8.30 p.m. on 25.10.2022, theaccused committed rape on the defacto complainant while she was in ‘mali lodge’ and thereby committed the offences. the petitioner was arrested in connection with the investigation of the said case on 20.12.2022,and since then, he has been in judicial custody. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. according to him, even going by the fis, no materials for attracting the offence under section 376 are revealed, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get bail.3. on the other hand, the learned public prosecutor would pointout that this is one of several cases in connection with the sexual exploitation of the victim in this case. the learned public prosecutor points out that the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he being a person having acquaintance with the victim, lured the victim and brought her to a lodge named ‘mali lodge’ at kasargod and thereafter committed rape. subsequently, she was introduced to another woman named jasmin, who later presented the victim to several persons for sexual exploitation. consequently, a series of cases have been registered for various offences against various persons. the learned public prosecutor further pointed out that the investigation in this case is in progress, and the release of the petitioner at this stage would cause prejudice to the prosecution.4. i have gone through the records, including the first informationstatement and the statement of the victim recorded under section 164 of cr.p.c. in both statements, the victim clearly mentioned the role of the petitioner. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid allegations against the petitioner, even if accepted, would not make out the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1944 CRIME NO.166/2022 OF VANITHA POLICE STATION, KASARGODE PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SHAINITH KUMAR.J AGED 30 YEARS SON OF JAYARAMAN NAIK R/AT ARIKKALA HOUSE, PATLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT., PIN - 671321 BY ADV VINAY M.E. RESPONDENTS/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KASARAGOD VANITHA POLICE STATION KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671121 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Adv M P PRASHANTH -PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.166/2022 of Kasargod Vanitha Police Station, which was registered for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 370A(2) of IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 8.30 p.m. on 25.10.2022, the

accused committed rape on the defacto complainant while she was in ‘Mali Lodge’ and thereby committed the offences. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the investigation of the said case on 20.12.2022,

and since then, he has been in judicial custody. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. According to him, even going by the FIS, no materials for attracting the offence under Section 376 are revealed, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get bail.

3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would point

out that this is one of several cases in connection with the sexual exploitation of the victim in this case. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he being a person having acquaintance with the victim, lured the victim and brought her to a lodge named ‘Mali Lodge’ at Kasargod and thereafter committed rape. Subsequently, she was introduced to another woman named Jasmin, who later presented the victim to several persons for sexual exploitation. Consequently, a series of cases have been registered for various offences against various persons. The learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the investigation in this case is in progress, and the release of the petitioner at this stage would cause prejudice to the prosecution.

4. I have gone through the records, including the First Information

Statement and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In both statements, the victim clearly mentioned the role of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid allegations against the petitioner, even if accepted, would not make out the offence under Section 376 of Cr.P.C. I am of the view that the same cannot be considered at this stage of proceedings. This is particularly because, according to the victim, the petitioner forcibly indulged in sexual intercourse with the petitioner, and therefore, it is a matter to be

investigated. Now the investigation is in progress. Moreover, it is discernible from the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that it was the petitioner who brought the victim to the lodge, and thereafter she came in the custody of one Jasmin, who exploited her by presenting the victim to various other persons for sexual exploitation, after administering narcotic drugs.

5. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view

that this is not a case in which bail can be granted at this stage. The investigation is in progress, and I am of the view that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it is likely to cause prejudice to the investigation, as contended by the learned Public Prosecutor. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this bail application, and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE scs APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 999/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 THE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE-I OF KASARAGOD IN CMP. 4515/2022 IN CRIME NO.166/2022 DATED 28-12-2022 Sealed Cover 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS IN CRIME NO.166/2022 DATED 28.12.2022

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial