Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J., allowed pre-arrest bail to the applicant accused of raping a women whom he allegedly met on facebook.

Accused preferred a pre-arrest bail application for offence punishable under Section 376(1) of the Penal Code, 1860.

Petitioner and informant were in a relationship for 1.5 years and petitioner had promised to marry the informant.

When informant had reached Kozikhode for purchasing some clothes for their marriage, she was taken to a lodge, where both petitioner and informant stayed together and informant was subjected to penetrative sexual abuse.

Petitioner also took some pictures of the informant and threatened with the same to obtain a sum of Rs 40,000 and gold chain.

Decision

Bench noted that according to the de facto complainant, she was in a relationship with the petitioner.

Court relied on the Supreme Court case of Dr Dhruvaram Muralidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra [2019 (1) KHC 403] wherein it was held that there is a distinction between rape and consensual sex.

Bench stated in the present matter that the question to be considered is:

Whether the accused had actually wanted to marry the victim or had mala fide motives and had made a false promise to that effect only to satisfy his lust?

“…former is not rape but the latter will fall within the ambit of cheating and deception.”

Distinction between mere breach of a promise and not fulfilling a false promise

Further Court also observed that,

if the consent given by the prosecutrix to sexual intercourse with a person with whom she is deeply in love on a promise that he would marry her on a later date, then such consent cannot be said to be given under a misconception of fact.

Thus, in view of the above, Court’s opinion was that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was not necessitous for an effective investigation.

Hence, the present application was allowed with certain conditions. [Shanil v. State of Kerala, Bail Appl. No. 3798 of 2020, decided on 06-07-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Harsimran Singh Sethi, J., held that, that once an offence takes place from the a mobile phone number, then the registered owner of the number has to explain as to how the said number was used for the commission of the offence.

Present petition was filed for grant of pre-arrest bail with regard to FIR under Section 420 Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 66 of IT Act, 2000.

Petitioner’s counsel, Padamkant Dwivedi, submitted that the petitioner had been unnecessarily roped in the above-mentioned FIR and the allegation alleged against him were totally incorrect and false.

Deputy Advocate General, Ajay Pal Singh Gill, filed a status report of the investigation wherein it had been mentioned that the number from which fake call was received, it was registered in the name of the petitioner.

Bench stated that once the mobile phone which has been used in the commission of the offence is registered in the name of the petitioner and the said number had been issued after bio-metric verification of KYC of the petitioner, it is the petitioner who has to explain as to how the said number was used for the commission of the offence.

Once the recovery of the phone is to be effected, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary so as to find out as to whether petitioner is also involved in any other cases of the similar nature or not.

Court found no ground to allow the petitioner the benefit of pre-arrest bail. [Shubham Singh v. State of Punjab, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 702, decided on 03-06-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: N. Anil Kumar, J. allowed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The applicant here is the accused in Crime No. 1158 of 2019, for offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 of the Penal Code which was registered at Muhamma police station, and then the FIR was forwarded to SHO for investigation than to the Judicial First Class Magistrate.

The facts of the case are that the de facto complainant is the Managing Director of the Company-Brothers Coir Mills Pvt. Ltd., registered under the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of coir products. The brother of the de facto complainant, John Jose, is one of the Director Board Member of the company. The accused worked as Senior Accountant of the company from 01-03-2017 to 31-08-2019.

The counsel for the respondent, B. Jayasurya, public prosecutor, contended that while the accused worked as a Senior Accountant of the company, he misappropriated the company funds in his own name. The total amount that he misappropriated was Rs 17,05,856. Hence, on this basis, the counsel contended that the accused should not be granted anticipatory bail. The counsel for the respondent hence was in the favour that there is a need for the custodial interrogation of the accused and recovery of the money.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, C.K. Sajeev, contended that for proper payments of the TDS amount due from the Company and to prevent hacking account from internet, the misappropriated amount was paid from the account opened in the name of the Director, namely, John Jose, who is the brother of the de facto complainant. The amount was transferred from the Current Account of the Company which was maintained with the South  Indian Bank Ltd. to the Current Account maintained and operated by the Board in the SME branch of the State Bank of India.

Section 148 of the Penal Code states that in case the accused cheats with the knowledge that he is likely to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest is the transaction to which the cheating relates, he is bounded to be punished. The prosecution is bound to prove a legal contract.

Section 420 provides that in case where the accused cheats and dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, to make or destroy or alter, whole or any part of a valuable security, which is signed or sealed and is capable of being converted into valuable security shall be punished as per Section 420.

The Court after perusing the documents came to the conclusion that there was some dispute between the Board of the Directors of the company and the petitioner, therefore, initiated the prosecution for no reason. The Court hence allowed the anticipatory bail with following directions:

  1. the petitioner will be released on bail in the event of arrest by executing a personal bond of Rs 50,000 along with two solvent sureties each for the amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
  2. the petitioner will have to appear before the Investigating Officer every Monda between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. for a period of 3 months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever earlier.
  3. the petitioner should not in any manner intimidate or influence the prosecution witnesses
  4. in case of violation, it is open to the Court having jurisdiction over the case to cancel his bail without any further orders from the Court.[Balaji A.S. v State of Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 6057, decided on 27-12-2019]
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: Raja Vijajayaraghavan, J. rejected an application for pre-arrest bail on the ground that victim was a minor girl.

An application was filed under Section 438 CrPC for the offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and under Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act, 2015.

The facts of the case were that the victim, the minor girl was called by the applicant to meet him as he had infatuation towards her and wanted to hug her. The victim reached the decided place in a car which belonged to the accused as stated by him. Thereafter they sat and had a conversation for some time. The applicant was alleged to offer a joint and they both smoked. Later, he was alleged to have sexually abused her.

Biju Antony, K.P. Prasanth, Shafin Ahammed, Hijas T.T., Archana Suresh, T.S. Krishendu, Vishnu Dileep counsels for the applicant submitted that numerous crimes were registered at the instance of the minor girl and this was also one such case. It was also submitted that investigation was almost complete and the custodial interrogation of the applicant was unwarranted.

Ramesh Chand, Public Prosecutor, strenuously opposed the prayer and submitted that the main allegation was that of sexual assault against the minor girl and thus the court will not be justified in arming the applicant with the order of pre-arrest bail.

The Court after perusing the material made available held that this was a prima facie case where a victim is a minor girl and thus held that “having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role assigned to the applicant, the age of the victim, the materials in support thereof and attendant facts, it does not appear to be a case in which this Court will be justified in granting the applicant an order of pre-arrest bail.”[Visobh K.V. v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1633, decided on 27-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: The Bench of Sunil Thomas, J. allowed the bail application filed by a member of a political party involved in protests against the entry of women in Sabarimala, on the ground that his custodial interrogation did not seem necessary for the investigation.

Petitioner herein was accused of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 506(ii), 324, 427, 332 and 307 read with Section 149 of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(e) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Allegation of the prosecution was that on 02-01-2019, petitioner along with 350 people conducted a procession protesting against the entry of women in Sabarimala. They pelted stones at the office of a political party, on police officers, and also attacked the defacto complainant.

The Court noted that the earlier bail application filed by petitioner – leader of the political party – was dismissed by this Court considering that he had committed the main overt acts. He seems to be the. However, even though his earlier bail application was dismissed, the investigating agency had not arrested him till the date of this hearing. It seemed that the investigation had progressed considerably.

Considering the change of circumstances, it was opined that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be absolutely essential at that point of time. Hence, he was granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail.[Sivan v. State of Kerala, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1006, Order dated 26-03-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Raja Vijayaraghavan J., decided a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant.

As per the facts of the case, the applicant was accused under Section 34 of the IPC. Further, the accused 1 to 4 were alleged to have abducted the de facto complainant and extorted money from him. The accused argued that the de facto complainant had made no allegations against him in the complaint. It was later based on the statement given by one of the accused that the applicant was roped in after several years.

The High Court observed that looking at the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the applicant and the evidence in support a custodial interrogation of the applicant was not necessary for an effective investigation. Further, the Court directed the applicant to appear before the investigating officer within ten days from the date of present order and undergo interrogation also, on a proposal to be arrested he shall be released on bail. Thus, the court allowed the anticipatory bail application. [Moidu v. State of Kerala,2018 SCC OnLine Ker 2824, order dated 25-07-2018]