VINOD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A boy of 22 years, who is the accused in Crime no. 173/2009 of Aryanadu Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 376 and 366 IPC is the petitioner herein. The said crime was registered initially under the caption "woman missing" at the instance of the father of the missing girl. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 1. 4. 2009 along with the missing girl and thereafter the crime was converted as one under sections 376 and 366 IPC and the alleged girl was produced before the learned Magistrate and the magistrate has recorded her statement. Annexure-1 is the said statement. It reveals that according to her, she went with him on her own free will and they were in love. She categorically stated that none had kidnapped her and she had no complaint against anyone. Her parents were present at the court and she expressed her readiness and willingness to go with them and accordingly she was sent with them. However, the petitioner, who was arrested on 1. 4. 2009, was remanded to judicial custody. In view of Annexure-1 statement and the subsequent development as is evident from annexure-2, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/accused may be enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that Annexure-3 would reveal that as on the date of occurrence the victim had crossed the age of 16 and she was capable of giving consent. I do not go into the merits of these submissions. However, for the limited purpose of considering the question whether the petitioner can be enlarged on bail, these facts were taken into account.

(2.) IN the said circumstances expatiated above and taking into account the fact that the petitioner/accused has been under judicial custody since 1. 4. 2009, I think the petitioner can be enlarged on bail with conditions.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, this application is allowed with the following conditions: