Allowed

Nilesh Jayantilal Shah v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jun 2014Bail Appl./3691/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by a petitioner accused under Sections 323, 354, 354A, and 420 of IPC. Noting unnatural circumstances and a delay in lodging the complaint, the court invoked Section 438 Cr.P.C. and granted bail with conditions including passport surrender and regular appearances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, ordered to surrender passport, and appear before IO on alternate Saturdays for three months.

Nilesh Jayantilal Shah Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/27TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3691 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 661/2014 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

NILESH JAYANTILAL SHAH AGED 45 YEARS S/O. JAYATHILAL HARILAL SHAH, PARTNER FALGOON CORPORATION, 8, URMILA BUILDING KOLDONGARI, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI-400069.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682031.

¶12

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686661.

¶13

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

das

¶16

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶17

B.A. No. 3691 of 2014

¶18

Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2014

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime

¶22

No.661/2014 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, which has been registered for offences under Sections 323, 354, 354A and 420 of IPC.

¶23

The defacto complainant's husband was involved in several criminal cases. A criminal court in Bombay issued a warrant for his production before that Court in connection with a criminal case pending in that Court. It was the petitioner who filed the criminal complaint in the Court at Bombay in his capacity as Power of Attorney holder of another party. On the defacto complainant's husband being taken into custody and kept in Sub Jail, Muvattupuzha, the petitioner came there. The de facto complainant met him.

¶24

B.A. No. 3691 of 2014

¶25

-2-

¶26

It is alleged that he agreed to take steps to recall the production warrant if the de facto complainant paid him certain amount, but it did not materialise. The relevant accusation in this case is that the petitioner, on a public road at Muvattupuzha, caught hold of the de facto complainant by the hand, made statements having sexual colour, pressed her breasts, took off her shawl and assaulted her. According to the prosecution, he has thus committed the offences mentioned above.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The alleged incident happened on 20.02.2014. The Police registered this case on the basis of a complaint which was forwarded to it by the learned Magistrate concerned under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In the complaint (FIS) there is no statement that the defacto complainant informed the Police about the incident, for which there is no

¶29

B.A. No. 3691 of 2014

¶30

-3-

¶31

explanation. Though the incident happened on 20.02.2014, the complaint was filed only on 30.02.2014. There is no explanation for the delay.

¶32

The alleged incident happened in broad day light on the public road at Muvattupuzha. If the allegations in the complaint are true there were series of acts on the part of the petitioner in the course of his committing the offence of outraging the modesty of the de facto complainant. I am fully conscious that at this stage it is not proper for me to make any comments about the merits of the case. But the unnatural circumstances in the complaint can be taken into account, even for the purpose of disposal of the bail application.

¶33

In my view this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶34

B.A. No. 3691 of 2014

¶35

-4-

¶36

In the result this bail application is allowed.

¶37

The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if he is arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶38

1. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.30 AM and 11.30 AM on every first and fourth Saturdays for three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶39

1. He shall surrender his passport before the learned Magistrate concerned or file an affidavit to the effect that he does not hold a passport.

¶40

B.A. No. 3691 of 2014

¶41

-5-

¶42

1. He shall not attempt to influence the

¶43

witnesses or intimidate them.

¶44

1. This order is not applicable if the petitioner chooses to surrender before the Magistrate concerned and in such case the learned Magistrate may take appropriate action in

¶45

accordance with the law.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE

¶48

//True Copy//

¶49

P.A. to Judge

¶50

jjj

Nilesh Jayantilal Shah v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Jayantilal Shah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vimal Vs the State of Kerala

Suresh Babu Vs the State of Kerala

Athul.P.Raj Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sajeevkumar Vs State of Kerala

Anu Santhi Vs State of Kerala

M.A Latheef Vs the Sub Inspector of Police