Bhadran and Sasikumar Vs. the State of Kerala

Bhadran and Sasikumar vs The State of Kerala

Disposition Application allowed Court Kerala Decided Apr 07, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/903373

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/903373
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: K.T. Sankaran, J.
Decided On: Apr 07, 2010
Case Number: Bail Appl. No. 2017 of 2010
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application allowed
Acts & sections: Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 3(2); ;Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 366 and 376; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 156(3) and 439

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bhadran and Sasikumar

Advocate S. Shanavas Khan, Adv.

Respondent

The State of Kerala

Advocate No Appearance

Legal References

Acts: Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 3(2); ;Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 366 and 376; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 156(3) and 439

Excerpt

- .....the offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 366 and 376 read with section 34 of the indian penal code and section 3(2)(v) of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act.3. the case of the de facto complainant is that on 12.12.2007, she was abducted by accused no. 1 and she was taken to the house of accused no. 2. in that house, she was illegally confined till 16.12.2007 and she was raped by the first accused on several occasions. she became pregnant and a child was born to her. there is no allegation of rape against accused no. 2. the de facto complainant filed a complaint before the magistrate's court on 10.3.2010. the complaint was forwarded to the police under section 156(3) of the code of criminal procedure and accordingly, the crime was registered.4. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.5. taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioners, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, i am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioners.the petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for rs. 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the judicial magistrate of the first class-i, haripad, subject to the following conditions:a) the first petitioner/first accused shall report before the investigating officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all mondays and thursdays for a period of two months and thereafter on all mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders. the second petitioner/second accused shall report before the investigating officer on alternate mondays till the final report is filed or until further orders;b) the petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;c) the petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 119 of 2010 of Kareelakulangara Police Station.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 366 and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. The case of the de facto complainant is that on 12.12.2007, she was abducted by accused No. 1 and she was taken to the house of accused No. 2. In that house, she was illegally confined till 16.12.2007 and she was raped by the first accused on several occasions. She became pregnant and a child was born to her. There is no allegation of rape against accused No. 2. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Magistrate's court on 10.3.2010. The complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly, the crime was registered.

4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioners, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioners.

The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs. 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Haripad, subject to the following conditions:

a) The first petitioner/first accused shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays and Thursdays for a period of two months and thereafter on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders. The second petitioner/second accused shall report before the investigating officer on alternate Mondays till the final report is filed or until further orders;

b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

d) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail;

e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

The Bail Application is allowed as above.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2010 Same Parties Bhadran and Sasikumar vs The State of Kerala Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.T. Sankaran, J. Acts & Sections Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrociti...

Criminal