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.

Vipin vs State of Kerala

VIPIN vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 25, 2021
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1636795

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./3579/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

VIPIN

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the petitioner refused to marry her.3. the petitioner has filed this application under section 438 cr.p.c.4. heard.5. the learned public prosecutor has noserious objection in allowing this application. the learned public prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. the petitioner is aged 30 years and the victim is aged 27 years. the informant is a married lady having two children. it appears that before obtaining divorce from the court, the informant started residing with the petitioner. considering the facts and circumstances of the case, i am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. in the said circumstances, i am inclined to grant the relief under section 438 cr.p.c. in favour of the petitioner. in the result, this application stands allowed and thepetitioner shall be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with crime no. 178 of 2021 of viyyur police station on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for rs.35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the station house officer concerned, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within twenty days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following conditions:(i) the petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when required by the investigating officer for interrogation.(ii) the petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence during the pendency of this case.(iii) the petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation. sd/- b.sudheendra kumar judge rk/25.05.2021

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1943 CRIME NO.178/2021 OF Viyyur Police Station, Thrissur PETITIONER/S: VIPIN AGED 30 YEARS KAIPLANGATTU HOUSE, POOMALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THRISSUR, PIN - 680582 BY ADVS. C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.178 of 2021 of Viyyur Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(n) of IPC.

2. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:- The informant is a married women having two

children. The informant was residing away from her husband. The matrimonial disputes are also pending before the Family Court. While so, the petitioner and the informant lived together as husband and wife from 01.04.2019 to 26.02.2020 on the promise by the petitioner that he would marry the informant. They had sexual intercourse also and as a consequence, she became pregnant. The pregnancy was naturally aborted on 01.01.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner refused to marry her.

3. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

4. Heard.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has no

serious objection in allowing this application. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner is aged 30 years and the victim is aged 27 years. The informant is a married lady having two children. It appears that before obtaining divorce from the court, the informant started residing with the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to grant the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. In the result, this application stands allowed and the

petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 178 of 2021 of Viyyur Police Station on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within twenty days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

(ii) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence during the pendency of this case.

(iii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation. Sd/- B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE RK/25.05.2021

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial