Allowed

Mottan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Oct 2013Bail Appl./6357/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by an accused allegedly involved in sexual assault and assault on relatives. The Court held that continued custody was unnecessary and imposes strict conditions to ensure the safety of victims and integrity of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with a bond of Rs. 25,000, reporting every Wednesday, surrender of passport, no leave of state without permission, no contact with victim, and no tampering with evidence.

Mottan Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/16TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6357 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 408/2013 OF AGALI POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD

¶7

APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.1.:

¶8

MOTTAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.POTTARAN, AYYAPPA NAGAR, PUTHUR MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

tss

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

Bail Application No.6357 OF 2013 --------------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of October, 2013.

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.408/2013 of Agali Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 324, 354B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that when the de facto complainant went over to the house of the petitioner to enquire about the sexual assault committed by him on the 9 year old daughter of the de facto complainant, the 2^nd accused is alleged to have beaten the husband of the de facto complainant on his face with a wooden stick and the 3^rd accused is also alleged to have beaten the de facto complainant. The allegation against the 1^st accused is that he had attacked the sister of the de facto complainant intending to outrage her modesty.

¶19

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. He denies of having

¶20

B.A. No.6357/2013

¶21

¶22

committed any act as alleged. At any rate, according to him, he has been in custody from 02.08.2013 onwards and his continued

¶23

custody is unnecessary.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the act committed by the petitioner cannot be viewed lightly in view of the fact that he is also accused of having committed rape on the child of the de facto complainant. It is also pointed out that the investigation is going on.

¶25

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and also after having perused the records, the claim of the petitioner that he is totally innocent cannot be countenanced. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the matter cannot be viewed lightly in view of the history behind the alleged attack by the petitioner on the sister of the de facto complainant. But the fact remains that the petitioner has been in custody from 02.08.2013 onwards and a good part of the investigation must have been completed by now. The continued custody of the petitioner appears to be unnecessary.

¶26

B.A. No.6357/2013

¶27

¶28

Therefore, the application is allowed on the following

¶29

conditions:

¶30

i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Court concerned and if does not possess a valid passport, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed before the Court concerned.

¶34

v) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission of the Court concerned.

¶35

vi) The petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly try to contact with the victim or her relatives.

¶36

vii) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper

¶37

B.A. No.6357/2013

¶38

¶39

with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.

¶40

viii) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to it in law.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶43

smp

¶44

// True Copy //

¶45

P.A. to Judge.

Mottan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mottan 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

Anilkumar (Kochani) Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Muneer Vs State of Kerala

Prasanna.S Vs State of Kerala

Shamseera Vs State of Kerala

Motan Vs State of Kerala