Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail Granted; Bail application disposed of.

Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:7710/2014
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date
2014-11-04
Court Decision / Holding
The court grants bail to the petitioner on his executing a bond for Rs.35,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount, subject to the following conditions: (i) petitioner shall not enter or reside within the Kasaragod Revenue District where the de facto complainant resides until trial, except with permission of the IO; (ii) if the complainant informs the IO that marriage is fixed, the petitioner may approach the IO for permission to enter Kasaragod for the marriage; (iii) petitioner shall surrender his passport within three days to the jurisdictional Magistrate and, if not a passport holder, file an affidavit; for travel abroad, he may seek court’s orders after; (iv) petitioner shall not commit a similar offence; (v) petitioner shall not influence or tamper with witnesses; (vi) petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation. Non-compliance will render the bail liable to cancellation. The Bail Application is disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition
Bail Granted; Bail application disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Sunilkumar, S/o Madhava (late)

Respondents

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

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri S. Jiji

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Public Prosecutor Mr. Danesh Mathew Manjooran

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a bail application by Sunil Kumar, accused No.1 in Crime No.132/2014 of Manjeshwar Police Station, Kasaragod District, registered for offences under IPC Sections 376, 323, 294(b), 506(i) and 312 read with Section 34. The second accused, the petitioner’s mother, is not arrested. The prosecution alleges that from December 2011 to February 2014, under the pretext and promise of marrying the victim, the petitioner engaged in sexual intercourse with a 25-year-old woman on multiple occasions. On February 9, 2014, when the complainant and a friend visited the petitioner’s house to inquire about another relationship, he allegedly manhandled her and threw her out, and the second accused is said to have abused her. The defense contends that the couple were in love and that the family opposed the marriage; Annexure A2 printed marriage card fixed for October 5, 2014; the petitioner was arrested on 17 September 2014 and has remained in custody for about 48 days. The parties even attempted settlement, as reflected by Annexure A-4. The prosecution maintains that investigation is nearly complete but suggests stringent bail terms to safeguard the prosecution’s interests. After hearing counsel, the Court grants conditional bail, with bond Rs.35,000, two sureties, and six conditions, including travel restrictions, potential resumption of marriage with permission, passport surrender, non-involvement in similar offences, non-tampering with witnesses, and full cooperation with investigation. The order notes the possibility of permitting entry into Kasaragod district for marriage if the de facto complainant confirms the arrangement.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Section 376IPC Section 323IPC Section 294(b)IPC Section 506(i)IPC Section 312 read with Section 34

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Discretionary nature of bail; bail is a discretionary relief and subject to stringent conditions
  • Guidance from precedents on travel/ passport permissions in bail matters (e.g., Asok Kumar v State of Kerala)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the relationship with the de facto complainant was a love affair. The family opposition to marriage and a fixed marriage card (Annexure A2) are cited, but the parties had reached a settlement (Annexure A-4). The petitioner has been in custody since 17/9/2014, about 48 days, and investigation is nearly complete. He asserts readiness to marry and seeks release on bail with stringent conditions, arguing that further custodial detention is unnecessary; the court is urged to consider travel/ marriage-related permissions under established principles (Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala) if necessary.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/Prosecution emphasizes the seriousness of the offences, the ongoing investigation, and the need to safeguard the prosecution’s case. It argues that while bail may be appropriate, it should be granted with stringent conditions to prevent interference with witnesses, ensure cooperation, and protect public interest. It notes near-completion of investigation but requests conditions to prevent misuse and to address security concerns for the complainant.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Asok Kumar v State of Kerala(2009(2) KLT 712)PositiveCited to guide on travel/ passport-related permissions under bail, reflecting acceptance of its principles.

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 Sunil Kumar 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/13TH KARTHIKA, 1936** **Bail Appl..No. 7710 of 2014 ()** **------------------------------CRIME NO. 132/2014 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD.** **.......** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:** **-------------------------------------------** **SUNILKUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVA (LATE), NEAR PARASHAKTHI TEMPLE, MADAYAR, KOTEKAR VILLAGE AND POST, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. DIST., KARNATAK STATE.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI.** **RESPONDENT/STATE:** **---------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** ## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **rs.** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ================== B.A.No.7710 of 2014 ================= Dated this the 4[th] day of November, 2014** ## **ORDER** The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.132/2014 of Manjeshwar Police Station in Kasaragod District registered for offences punishable under Sections 376,323,294(b),506(i) and 312 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 2[nd] accused in this crime is the mother of the petitioner and she is not arrested by the police. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that under the pretext and promise of marrying the defacto complainant, a girl aged 25 years, the first petitioner aged 24 years, had sexual intercourse with her on several occasions from B.A. No.7710/2014 2 December 2011 to 21/2/2014 and it is further alleged that on 9/2/2014 the de facto complainant along with her friend went to the house of the petitioner to enquire about his relationship with another girl which infuriated him and he manhandled her and pushed her out of the house and the 2[nd] accused abused her in filthy language and has thus committed the above offences as alleged. 3. Shri.S.Jiji, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was in love with the defacto complainant and since the defacto complainant was elder to the petitioner by one year, the petitioner's mother was against the marriage. Their marriage was fixed and Annexure A2 card was printed fixing the marriage date on 5/10/2014, but the petitioner was arrested on 17/9/2014 and he has been under custodial detention for the last 48 days. It is alleged that the private complaint was filed by the defacto complaint on February 2014 as a pressure tactics and this led to registration of Annexure A1 FIR on B.A. No.7710/2014 3 21/2/2014. It is further submitted that the matter is settled between the parties and he is ready to marry the defacto complainant and Annexure A-4 is an agreement executed between the mother of the petitioner (Accused No.2) and the defacto complainant. The learned counsel would submit that investigation is completed and further custodial detention of the petitioner is not necessary. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit about the details of the registration and investigation of the crime. He would further submit investigation of the case is almost completed and that in case this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, necessary stringent conditions may be imposed , so as to protect the bona fide interest of the prosecution. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and on evaluation of the totality of the facts an circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to take the view that this is a fit case to exercise B.A. No.7710/2014 4 discretion for granting bail to the petitioner, but subject to the stringent conditions. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.35,000/(Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court below concerned and on subject to the following conditions; _i). Petitioner shall not enter into or reside within the territorial limits of the Kasaragod Revenue District within whose area the de facto complainant is residing until the conclusion of the trial except with the permission of the investigating officer in this crime and except for the purpose of compliance with the other conditions in the order or for meeting the requirements of any other case in the courts of Kasargod District._ _ii). It is made clear that if the lady defacto complainant_ B.A. No.7710/2014 5 _informs the Investigating Officer that her marriage is fixed with the petitioner herein, as now stated by the petitioner in this petition, then in that eventuality the petitioner shall approach the investigating officer who may then grant necessary permission to the petitioner for entering into or reside within the territorial limits of the Kasaragod Revenue district for the purpose of the above said marriage._ _iii). The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within three days from the execution of the bail bond before the Investigating Officer and if he is not a holder of passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport in connection with his travel abroad, then he shall approach the court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case such an application is filed, the trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, as the case_ B.A. No.7710/2014 6 _may be, is free to consider the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking necessary guidance from the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in the case_ _**Asok Kumar v State of Kerala,** (2009(2) KLT 712), notwithstanding the aforementioned conditions imposed by this Court._ _iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar nature._ _v) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever._ _vi) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation and report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him._ B.A. No.7710/2014 7 If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the aforementioned conditions, the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application stand disposed of as above. **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.** _dpk_ B.A. No.7710/2014 8