Santhosh vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 30, 2020

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1781590

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/1781590
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice V.G.Arun
Decided On: Oct 30, 2020
Case Number: Crl.MC/3115/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Santhosh

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....with his family members. the investigation of the case being over, no purpose will be served by continuing the condition, is the contention.5. according to the learned publicprosecutor, the gravity of the crime committed by the petitioner and the fact that he is involved in similar other crimes are the factors that had weighed with the learned magistrate, while issuingannexure a3 order. the reasons stated in the orderbeing proper, warrant no interference. it is pointed out that other crimes were also committed by the petitioner within the limits of the thirurangadi police station and hence, completion of investigation in the instant case, cannot be a reason to permit the petitioner to enter the limits of the thirurangadi police station.6. no doubt, the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature. the allegation is of the petitioner having forced the victim to have sexual intercourse with him against her willand of having taken her nude pictures. other crimes of similar nature are also registered against the petitioner. as such, the conditionthat he shall not enter the limits of the policestation which the victims are residing, is not unreasonable. but, as a result of such condition, the petitioner has been denied theopportunity to meet his family at his residence for more than eight months. as such, the condition requires modification to the limited extent of providing an opportunity to the petitioner to meet his family members at his residence. in the result, condition no.2 in annexure a1order is modified as follows:“petitioner is permitted to enter the limits of thirurangadi police station solely for the purpose of visiting his family at his residence between 9 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. every saturday, subject to the condition that the petitioner will not attempt to contact.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1942 Crl.MC.No.3115 OF 2020(H) CRMC 151/2020 OF SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI CRIME NO.547/2019 OF Thirurangadi Police Station , Malappuram PETITIONER/S: SANTHOSH AGED 36 YEARS S/O.BHASKARAN, PATTALATHIL HOUSE, THIRURANGADI POST, VELLIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676306. BY ADVS. SMT.O.M.SHALINA SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. OTHER PRESENT: SR.PP.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 30th day of October, 2020 Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.547 of 2019 of Thirurangadi Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 201 IPC and Section 67 (A) of the Information Technology Act, now pending as C.P.No.13 of 2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi.

2. By Annexure A1 order dated 26.02.2020, the petitioner was granted bail by the Sessions Court subject to certain conditions. Condition No.2 in Annexure A1 is that the petitioner shall not enter the limits of Thirurangadi Police Station till the

conclusion of the trial. The petitioner later

filed an application seeking modification of the said condition, which stands dismissed by Annexure A3 order. Aggrieved, the Crl.M.C is filed.

3. Heard Smt.O.M.Shalina, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the instant crime was registered on 24.12.2019, consequent to which the petitioner was

arrested        on    01.01.2020         and     released     only     on
26.02.2020.          It is submitted that till date,                  the
petitioner            has      scrupulously           complied        the
conditions           in     Annexure      A1      order.     That,     by
prohibiting          the     petitioner        from    entering       the
limits     of    Thirurangadi            Police    Station,      he    is
denied the           opportunity of residing in his house

along with his family members. The investigation of the case being over, no purpose will be served by continuing the condition, is the contention.

5. According to the learned Public

Prosecutor, the gravity of the crime committed by the petitioner and the fact that he is involved in similar other crimes are the factors that had weighed with the learned Magistrate, while issuing

Annexure A3 order. The reasons stated in the order

being proper, warrant no interference. It is pointed out that other crimes were also committed by the petitioner within the limits of the Thirurangadi Police Station and hence, completion of investigation in the instant case, cannot be a reason to permit the petitioner to enter the limits of the Thirurangadi Police Station.

6. No doubt, the offences alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature. The allegation is of the petitioner having forced the victim to have sexual intercourse with him against her will

and   of     having    taken      her       nude    pictures.       Other
crimes      of    similar    nature         are     also     registered
against     the    petitioner.         As    such,    the     condition

that he shall not enter the limits of the Police

Station    which the       victims are            residing, is         not
unreasonable.         But,     as            a    result        of    such
condition,     the    petitioner         has      been     denied       the

opportunity to meet his family at his residence for more than eight months. As such, the condition requires modification to the limited extent of providing an opportunity to the petitioner to meet his family members at his residence. In the result, condition No.2 in Annexure A1

order is modified as follows:

“petitioner is permitted to enter the limits of Thirurangadi Police Station solely for the purpose of visiting his family at his residence between 9 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. every Saturday, subject to the condition that the petitioner will not attempt to contact the de facto complainants/victims in any of the crimes registered against him or to influence or intimidate the witnesses.” sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/30.10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2020 IN CRL.MISC.CASE NO.151/2020 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI DIVISION. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT ON 24.12.2019 IN CRIME NO.547/2019. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2020 IN CRL.M.C.NO.407 OF 2020 OF THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI DIVISON.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties Santhosh vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice V.G.Arun