Jithin Kumar vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17912 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
    WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943
                        BAIL APPL. NO. 6212 OF 2021
 CRIME NO.1792/2021 OF Vattappara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1075/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
            FIRST CLASS -I, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

            JITHIN KUMAR,
            AGED 26 YEARS
            S/O.PRASANNA KUMAR, SHEELA BHAVAN, KAITHARAMOOZHI,
            PERUKKOOR, VEMBAYAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

            BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN



RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

     1      STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            ERNAKULAM-682 031.

     2      STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
            VATTAPPARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

            SMT. SEETHA S., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS   BAIL     APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BA No.6212/2021                            -2-

                                        ORDER

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1792/2021 of Vattappara Police

Station, Thiruvananthapuram alleging commission of offences punishable under

Sections 341, 354,376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police

Act. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that on the false pretext of marriage the

petitioner sexually harassed the de-facto complainant and also blackmailed her using

certain photographs taken by him. It is also alleged that the petitioner entered into the

relationship with the defacto-complainant by promising to marry her and hiding the

fact that he was already married. It is also alleged that despite the de-facto

complainant avoiding the petitioner, on coming to know that he was already married,

the petitioner continued to harass her in every possible manner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations

are totally incorrect and that the relationship was purely consensual. The petitioner

was arrested on 28-07-2021 and was remanded to judicial custody on 29-07-2021. The

learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that a statement under Section

164 of Cr.P.C has already been recorded and that the investigation is progressing.

Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for the purposes of

investigation in this matter. Considering that fact and considering the fact that the

petitioner was in custody from 28-07-2021 I am of the opinion that the petitioner can

be released on bail, subject to strict conditions. In the result this application is allowed.

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of

Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of

the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad.

(ii) The petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation in any manner and shall

not attempt to influence any witness.

(iii) The petitioner shall not engage in any other criminal activity while on bail.

(iv) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating officer, namely the Sub

Inspector Police, Vattappara Police Station on every Saturday between 10 a.m.

and 11 a.m. until he is informed in writing by the Sub Inspector of Police that his

continued appearance is not required.

(v) The petitioner shall not in any manner attempt to contact or meet the de-facto

complainant or any of her family members.

If any of these conditions are violated, it is open for the prosecution to move the

J.F.C.M-I, Nedumangad for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

AMG