Allowed

K.V. Suresh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Mar 2013Bail Appl./2001/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment deals with a bail application in a criminal case involving alleged outraging of modesty. The High Court allowed bail on conditions, considering the case arose from a matrimonial dispute and the petitioner's employment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail via Judicial First Class Magistrate upon executing a bond with sureties and complying with reporting conditions.

K.V. Suresh Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2013/30TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2001 of 2013 (A)

¶6

[CRIME NO. 316/2013 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT]

¶7

PETITIONER/ ACCUSED:

¶8

K.V. SURESH,

¶9

S/O LATE ACHUTHAN .K.V., AGED 55 YEARS, HOUSE KEEPING ASSISTANT, K.T.D.C. YATHRI NIVAS, KANNUR II VILLAGE, KANNUR TALUK, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR- 670 002.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR.

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Prv.

¶16

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶17

--------------------------------------Bail Application No.2001 OF 2013

¶18

Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2013.

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is accused in Crime No.316/2013 of Kannur Town Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that while the de facto complainant, who was the wife of the petitioner, was on her way to office on 05.03.2013 at 9'O clock, the accused tried to obstruct her way and after assaulting her, he outraged her modesty.

¶21

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is pointed out that the divorce granted by the family court has been challenged before this Court and a stay of order has been obtained. It is also pointed out that a false complaint has been filed to see that the petitioner is behind the bars. The petitioner would say that he

¶22

B.A. No.2001/2013

¶23

¶24

has not committed any act which would constitute an offence. It is also pointed out that he is working in KTDC at Wayanad.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage.

¶26

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶27

the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records, it cannot be said that there is no merit in the complaint. However, the fact remains that the dispute is between the petitioner and his wife and it is true that there is a decree of divorce which has been challenged in appeal. Under these circumstances, the petitioner claims that he is falsely implicated. The said claim cannot be brushed aside. Anyway, a deeper probe into the veracity of the allegations is not warranted at this point of time.

¶28

Considering the nature of the allegation against the petitioner, the manner in which the offence was committed and the fact that he is employed, it is felt that this is a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the application is allowed on the following

¶29

B.A. No.2001/2013

¶30

¶31

conditions:

¶32

i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 27.03.2013 who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned.

¶33

ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by him.

¶34

iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Thursday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders.

¶35

iv) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.

¶36

v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned, on being satisfied of the

¶37

B.A. No.2001/2013

¶38

¶39

said fact, may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶40

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶41

smp

K.V. Suresh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.V. Suresh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abison Vs the State of Kerala

Moidutty Vs State of Kerala

Deva Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Rajaneesh Vs State of Kerala

Salim B.A. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala