Shijimol vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 28, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1450892

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1450892
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Feb 28, 2022
Case Number: Bail Appl./1268/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shijimol

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....police station, ernakulam district, alleging commission of offences under sections 384, 420 and 506 read with section 34 of the indian penal code.3. the allegation against the petitioner is that with an intention to extort money from the de-facto complainant, thepetitioner had during the period between 01.09.2021 and 03.02.2022, had taken the nude picture etc., of the de-facto complainant and had thereafter, started extorting money from him by using these pictures.4. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the allegations are absolutely false. it is submitted that the petitioner, who is separated from her husband, was in a live-in relationship with the de-factocomplainant. it is submitted that the gold ornaments of the petitioner were taken away by the de-facto complainant stating that he had to urgently raise some money for the purpose of his business. it is submitted that when the petitioner became pregnant out of the relationship with the de-facto complainant, he started avoiding her. it is submitted that a portion of the money obtained by selling the gold ornaments of the petitioner was returned by the de-facto complainant. thereafter, a false complaint was raised to escape from the liability to repay the balance amount and also to withdraw from the relationship with the petitioner. it is submitted that the petitioner is presently pregnant and intends to terminate the pregnancy and continued incarceration will result in medical complications, if such a procedure is to be done.5. the learned public prosecutor opposes the grant ofbail. she submits that the petitioner was involved in other criminal cases. the petitioner was earlier involved in crime no.549 of 2011 of varapuzha police station, alleging commission of offenes under sections 366a, 372, 373, 376 and 506(i) read with section 34 of the indian penal code and section 26 of the juvenile justice (care ad protection of children) act. it is submitted that the petitioner is.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRIME NO.147/2022 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SHIJIMOL, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O SAKARIA KURUMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE MIR FLAT NO. 17 D, PALACHUVADU BHAGAM NGO QUARTERS, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 021. BY ADV P.A.MUJEEB RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN - 682 031. BY SMT.MAYA M.N (PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This is an application for regular bail.

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.147 of 2022 of Thrikkakara Police Station, Ernakulam District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 384, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that with an intention to extort money from the de-facto complainant, the

petitioner had during the period between 01.09.2021 and 03.02.2022, had taken the nude picture etc., of the de-facto complainant and had thereafter, started extorting money from him by using these pictures.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the allegations are absolutely false. It is submitted that the petitioner, who is separated from her husband, was in a live-in relationship with the de-facto

complainant. It is submitted that the gold ornaments of the petitioner were taken away by the de-facto complainant stating that he had to urgently raise some money for the purpose of his business. It is submitted that when the petitioner became pregnant out of the relationship with the de-facto complainant, he started avoiding her. It is submitted that a portion of the money obtained by selling the gold ornaments of the petitioner was returned by the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, a false complaint was raised to escape from the liability to repay the balance amount and also to withdraw from the relationship with the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is presently pregnant and intends to terminate the pregnancy and continued incarceration will result in medical complications, if such a procedure is to be done.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of

bail. She submits that the petitioner was involved in other criminal cases. The petitioner was earlier involved in Crime No.549 of 2011 of Varapuzha Police Station, alleging commission of offenes under Sections 366A, 372, 373, 376 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice (Care ad Protection of Children) Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail considering the nature of the allegations raised against her.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case and considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail, especially taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a 34 year old woman, who is stated to have a minor child to take care of, I am convinced that the continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of investigation. I also take note of the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in Crime No.549 of 2011 through order in S.C.No.237 of 2015 of the II nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam.

7. In the result, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

(1) The petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court;

(2) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in Crime No.147 of 2022 of Thrikkakara Police Station, Ernakulam District, as and when called upon to do so;

(3) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant or any witness in Crime No.147 of 2022 of Thrikkakara Police Station, Ernakulam District;

(4) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.147 of 2022 of Thrikkakara Police Station, Ernakulam District, may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Shijimol vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.