High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-08-14Bail Granted to petitioner subject to stringent...

NOBIN VINOD v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:B.A.No.4819 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-08-14
Court Decision / Holding: Bail is allowed on stringent conditions: (1) the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and undergo interrogation; (2) after interrogation, if the IO proposes arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail executing a bond for Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the officer; (3) the petitioner shall appear before the IO for interrogation as and when required and shall cooperate with the investigation and shall not induce or threaten any witness; (4) the petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court; (5) the petitioner shall not commit any similar offence; (6) the petitioner shall abide by the guidelines issued for social distancing due to COVID-19; (7) if any condition is violated, the jurisdictional Court may cancel the bail;
Final Disposition: Bail Granted to petitioner subject to stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nobin Vinod

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. P. Pradeep

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Ajith Murali, PP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This bail application under section 438 CrPC concerns Nobin Vinod, accused in Crime No.2142/2020 of Thiruvalla Police Station, charged under sections 406, 420 and 376 IPC. The prosecution alleges a long-running relationship with the complainant, who was employed at Pushpagiri Medical College, from 2018 to 2019, and that the accused, while promising to marry her, sexually assaulted her on 24.9.2018 and 21.10.2018 in lodges at Alappuzha and Ernakulam; it is further alleged that he extorted Rs.75,000 and later married another woman in 2020, thereby cheating her. The defense argues that the intercourse occurred with the victim's consent and there was only a love affair; a promise to marry was made and the couple had planned marriage, but it did not materialize. The victim is presently in Saudi Arabia and filed the FIR via email; she is not available for cross-examination. The Public Prosecutor contends the offences were committed without consent and on a predicated promise to marry. After hearing both sides, the Court held that bail can be granted under stringent conditions given the nature of the allegations and the fact that the complainant is not available; it also relied on Supreme Court and Kerala decisions on bail and the ongoing COVID-19 context. The order imposes conditions: appearance before IO within ten days; bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties; travel restrictions; not leaving India; not committing similar offences; and adherence to social distancing guidelines; bail may be canceled on violation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of CrPCSections 406, 420, 376 IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant’s counsel submitted that the victim’s intercourse with the petitioner was with her consent and that there was no force or coercion. The relationship originated from love; a promise to marry was made but the marriage did not materialize. The FIR was filed after a considerable period and the complainant is presently in Saudi Arabia, unavailable for cross-examination. Therefore, there is no immediate danger of tampering with witnesses, and bail should be considered with stringent conditions to ensure fair trial and prevent abuse of liberty, especially in view of the COVID-19 prison guidelines. It was argued that the offences under Section 376 IPC may not be made out in the given facts, and that continued detention would be disproportionate to the investigation’s requirements.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that the acts were committed without consent and on a promise to marry, arguing the gravity of the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 376 IPC. It was submitted that the complainant’s allegations, if true, point to a serious breach involving sexual exploitation and financial deceit, necessitating care in not granting bail to avoid danger to the societal interest and to ensure a fair investigation.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Chidambaram P. v Directorate of Enforcement	2019 (16) SCALE 870	Positive	Cited to support the basic bail principle that bail is the rule and the jail is the exception, guiding the Court’s approach to grant bail in appropriate circumstances.
Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case	Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020	Mentioned Only	Cited to justify social distancing and health-related directives in prisons; used as contextual support rather than as the central legal basis for bail decision.
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra & others	2019(1)KHC 403	Mentioned Only	Cited in discussing whether consent under a promise of marriage affects the offence of rape; discussed but not adopted as a controlling principle here.
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & another	2019 KHC 6829	Mentioned Only	Cited on the same issue of consent and promise to marry; used for discussion but not binding here.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against NOBIN VINOD v. STATE OF KERALA and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.4819 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.2142/2020 OF Thiruvalla Police Station , Pathanamthitta** ## **PETITIONER:** **NOBIN VINOD AGED 27 YEARS THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, NALUNKKAL P.O, PANNITHADAM, VAKATHANAM KOTTAYAM, PIN-686538** **BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP** ## **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031** ## **SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.4819 of 2020 2 ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** -------------------------------- B.A.No.4819 of 2020 ------------------------------Dated this the 14[th ] day of August, 2020 ## **O R D E R** This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2142 of 2020 of Thiruvalla Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 376 IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the victim and the de facto complainant were working in Pushpagiri Medical College, Thiruvalla during the period from 1.6.2018 to 21.9.2019. They were in love. The petitioner under the pretext to marry the victim/complainant, committed rape on the victim on 24.9.2018 and on 21.10.2018. It is alleged that she was taken in two different lodges in Alappuzha and committed sexual B.A.No.4819 of 2020 3 intercourse. She was also taken to a lodge in Ernakulam and was having sexual intercourse. Further allegation is that, by utilizing the relationship, the petitioner, on various occasions had collected a total amount of Rs.75,000/- from the victim. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioner married another woman on 29.6.2020 and therefore cheated the complainant. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim is now in Saudi Arabia. He sent an email to the police station concerned and based on the same the present FIR is registered. The counsel for the petitioner admitted that there was a love affair between the petitioner and the victim. There was sexual intercourse by the petitioner with the victim with her consent. Subsequently, the marriage of the victim with a person working at United States was arranged. Therefore, the petitioner and the victim decided to stop the relationship. Somehow or other the marriage of the victim with the person B.A.No.4819 of 2020 4 working in United States was not solemnized. Thereafter, the present complaint is filed by the victim. The counsel submitted that no offence is made out in the case. 5. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner committed sexual offences without the consent of the victim and it was on a promise that he will marry the victim. 6. After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The admitted case is that the petitioner and the victim stayed at several places and had sex with the consent. The allegation against the petitioner is that the victim consented for sex because there was a promise to marry. Whether in such situation the offence u/s.376 IPC is made out is considered by the Supreme Court in **Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra & others (2019(1)KHC 403) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra & another (2019 KHC 6829)** . I do not want to make any observation on the merit of the case. B.A.No.4819 of 2020 5 Admittedly, even now the victim is in Saudi Arabia. The complaint is sent by the victim through email. For further investigation, the victim is also not available. In such circumstances, it is injustice to deny bail to the petitioner. Therefore, this bail application is allowed on stringent conditions. 7. Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020)** and a Full Bench of this Court in **W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020** issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons. 8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870),** after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to B.A.No.4819 of 2020 6 bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. 9. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: 1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. 2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned. 3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and B.A.No.4819 of 2020 7 when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. 4. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court. 5. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 6. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic. B.A.No.4819 of 2020 8 7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE** cms