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.

Vinod vs State of Kerala

VINOD vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 06, 2022
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1541346

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./7584/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

VINOD

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the following: bechu kurian thomas, j ......….................................. b.a.no. 7584 of 2022 ….................................. dated this the 6 th day of october, 2022orderthis is an application for pre-arrest bail filed under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973.2. petitioner is the sole accused in crime no.1610 of 2022 of thiruvalla police station registered for the offences punishable under sections 354, 354b and 354c of the indian penal code, 1860.3. the prosecution case is that, on 25.06.2022 the accusedenticed the victim to travel in the autorickshaw driven by him and forced her to indulge in sexual intercourse with him. when she resisted it, the accused tore her dress and when the victim jumped out from the autorickshaw in a bid to escape, she sustained injuries and the accused committed the offenses alleged.4. sri.t.p.pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the prosecution allegations are false and that the incident as alleged had never occurred. it was further submitted that the petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed.5. sri.noushad k.a., the learned public prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail and submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have committed a serious offence, which requires custodial interrogation.6. i have perused the statement of the victim and have also considered the rival contentions.7. having regard to the nature of allegations, i am of the view that limited custody of the petitioner would suffice the investigation.8. accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:(a) petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on 13.10.2022 and shall subject himself to interrogation.(b) if after interrogation, the investigating officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he 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 before.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 7584 OF 2022 [CRIME NO.1610 OF 2022 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION] PETITIONER/ACCUSED : VINOD AGED 35 YEARS VATTAKKERIL HOUSE,MEPRAL.P.O, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689 591. BY ADVS. T.P.PRADEEP P.K.SATHEES KUMAR MINIKUMARY M.V. R.K.PRASANTH JIJO JOSEPH RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031. PP SRI.NOUSHAD K.A THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J ......….................................. B.A.No. 7584 of 2022 ….................................. Dated this the 6 th day of October, 2022

ORDER

This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1610 of 2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 354B and 354C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 25.06.2022 the accused

enticed the victim to travel in the autorickshaw driven by him and forced her to indulge in sexual intercourse with him. When she resisted it, the accused tore her dress and when the victim jumped out from the autorickshaw in a bid to escape, she sustained injuries and the accused committed the offenses alleged.

4. Sri.T.P.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the prosecution allegations are false and that the incident as alleged had never occurred. It was further submitted that the petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed.

5. Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail and submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have committed a serious offence, which requires custodial interrogation.

6. I have perused the statement of the victim and have also considered the rival contentions.

7. Having regard to the nature of allegations, I am of the view that limited custody of the petitioner would suffice the investigation.

8. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 13.10.2022 and shall subject himself to interrogation.

(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he 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 before the Investigating Officer.

(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co- operate with the investigation.

(d) 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;

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

9. 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 AMV/06/10/2022

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial