AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
Facts
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.700/2022 of Nedupuzha Police Station, Thrissur, alleging offences punishable under Sections 376(1) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to the prosecution, during the period from 24.12.2021 to 12.06.2022 the accused committed rape on the victim after promising to marry her and thereafter backed out of the said promise. The petitioner filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the petitioner and the alleged victim met on the online dating app Tinder and fell in love, that even if the entire allegations were assumed the same would only reveal instances of a consensual relationship, and that converting a consensual relationship into rape was attempted by the victim for ulterior purposes; considering the period of detention already undergone and his young age, the petitioner ought to be released on bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail and contended that, according to the victim, they met through a matrimonial advertisement and the petitioner offered to marry her, on which belief the victim indulged in a sexual relationship; subsequently when the victim became pregnant the petitioner backed out of the marriage purportedly due to better proposals coming his way, the pregnancy was aborted and thereafter the petitioner backed out of the promise, making it clear to the victim that the petitioner’s sole intention was to sexually abuse her under the guise of a promise to marry. The court perused the statement of the victim and considered the rival contentions.
Law Points
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of the allegations under Sections 376(1) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the petitioner’s age and the period of detention already undergone.
Acts & Articles
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376(1) and 376(2)(n).
Judgments Referred
Not discussed in this judgment.
Obiter Dicta
Not discussed in this judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that although the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, the petitioner can be released on bail considering his age and the period of detention already undergone, subject to strict conditions.
Final Ruling
The application was allowed. The petitioner is to be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or her family members; shall not commit any similar offences while on bail; and shall not leave India without the permission of the court having jurisdiction and shall surrender his passport to the Investigating Officer. In case of violation of any of the conditions, the jurisdictional Court is empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
Plain-Language Gist
The petitioner was accused of rape on a promise to marry. The High Court granted him regular bail, noting that the allegations were serious but taking into account his young age and the period he had already spent in detention. The bail is subject to strict conditions, including furnishing sureties, appearing before the investigating officer, not contacting the victim, and surrendering his passport.
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.
Judgment
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.700/2022 of Nedupuzha Police Station, Thrissur, alleging offences punishable under Sections 376(1), 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to the prosecution, during the period from 24.12.2021 and 12.06.2022, the accused committed rape on the victim after promising to marry her and thereafter backed out of the said promise and thereby committed the offences alleged.
Sri.Mohammed Aslam, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the alleged victim and the petitioner had met each other on an online dating app by the name 'Tinder' and thereafter they fell in love. It was submitted that even if the entire allegations are assumed without accepting to be correct, still the same would only reveal instances of consensual relationship. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel that converting a consensual relationship into rape is attempted by the victim for ulterior purposes. The learned counsel also submitted that considering the period of detention already undergone and his young age, petitioner ought to be released on bail.
Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that according to the victim, they met through a matrimonial advertisement and that, petitioner had offered to marry the victim and on that belief, the victim indulged in a sexual relationship. Subsequently when the victim became pregnant, petitioner backed out of the said marriage purportedly due to better proposals coming his way. In the meantime, the pregnancy was aborted and thereafter petitioner backed out of the promise. Thus it became clear to the victim that petitioner's sole intention was to sexually abuse her under the guise of promise to marry.
I have perused the statement of the victim and have also considered the rival contentions. Having regard to the nature of allegations, I am of the view that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. However, considering the age of the petitioner and the period of detention already undergone, I am of the opinion that petitioner can be released on bail on strict conditions.
Accordingly, I allow this application on the following conditions :-
(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.
(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or her family members.
(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.
(e) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction and shall surrender his passport to the Investigating Officer.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.