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.

Afsal vs State of Kerala

AFSAL vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 03, 2023
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1408692

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Bail Appl./10263/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

AFSAL

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the rival contentions.7. petitioner is only 24 years in age and is alleged to haveraped the victim aged 19 years on two occasions, after promising to marry her. since the petitioner was arrested on 21.11.2022, having regard to the period of detention already undergone and the young age of the petitioner, further detention would not serve any purpose, especially since the investigation has proceeded substantially.in the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-(a) petitioner shall be released on bail on him 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.(b) petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required.(c) petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or her family members.(d) petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.(e) petitioner shall not leave india without the permission ofthe 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, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this court. bechu kurian thomas judge jm/ appendix of bail appl. 10263/2022 petitioner annexures annexure a1 certified copy of the order dated 14.12.2022 in crl. m.c no. 1050/2022 passed by the sessions judge, thodupuzha

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 13TH POUSHA, 1944 (Crime No.1576/2022 of Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki District) PETITIONER/S: AFSAL AGED 24 YEARS S/O. ASHRAF, PAREKKADU HOUSE, KEEZHSHERI BHAGAM, KUZHIMANNA KARA, KUZHIMANNA VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT , PIN - 673641 BY ADV DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 PP SMT.M.K PUSHPALATHA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

======================== B.A.No.10263 of 2022 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of January 2023

ORDER

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1576/2022 of

Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki District, now transferred and renumbered as Crime No.1037/2022 of Vazhakkulam Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. According to the prosecution, petitioner had committed the offence of rape after promising to marry the victim and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Sri.Domson J Vattakuzhy, learned Counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the prosecution allegations are false and that the petitioner is innocent of the crime. It was further submitted that even if the entire allegations are assumed to be true, the same would only reveal a consensual relationship. According to the learned Counsel, petitioner is a young man of 24 years and he was arrested on 21.11.2022. It was pointed out that since the investigation is almost on the verge of completion, taking note of the period of detention already undergone, petitioner ought to be released on bail.

5. Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, learned Public Prosecutor on the

other hand opposed the grant of bail and submitted that the prosecution allegations are serious in nature, and the investigation is not yet completed and therefore, petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

6. I have considered the rival contentions.

7. Petitioner is only 24 years in age and is alleged to have

raped the victim aged 19 years on two occasions, after promising to marry her. Since the petitioner was arrested on 21.11.2022, having regard to the period of detention already undergone and the young age of the petitioner, further detention would not serve any purpose, especially since the investigation has proceeded substantially.

In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him 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.

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or her family members.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of

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, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE jm/ APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 10263/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2022 IN CRL. M.C NO. 1050/2022 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, THODUPUZHA

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial