Allowed

Sugathan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jan 2015Bail Appl./41/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused in a case involving sexual offences and house trespass. The court holds that custodial interrogation is not required given the availability of call detail records and other evidence, directly allowing the bail application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions of reporting and non-interference with evidence.

Sugathan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/24TH POUSHA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl.No. 41 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 1669/2014 OF POONTHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

--------------------------------------

¶9

SUGATHAN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O RAJU, TC 47/1290, KOCHUNADAKKAVU, RAJANI NIVAS, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

-------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

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

¶14

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POONTHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

msv/

¶18

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶19

¶20

B.A. No.41 of 2015

¶21

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2015

¶22

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶23

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶24

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1669/2014

¶25

of Poonthura Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(B), 354(D), 452, 458 and 506(ii) IPC.

¶26

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 26.10.2014 at 11 p.m., he committed house trespass into the house of the defacto complainant woman, caught hold of her and made sexual overtures towards her and also sexually abused her.

¶27

The crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram, which was referred to the police under

¶28

BA.41/2015

¶29

: 2 :

¶30

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is alleged that the petitioner had procured an 'Airtel Sim Card' by making use of his ID and had given to the defacto complainant and through it, they were frequently contacting each other. It is alleged that the petitioner had frequently made sexual overtures towards her over the phone also.

¶31

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

¶32

The contents of the CD contains the call details in

¶33

respect of the phone. It is seen that the petitioner was caught red handed from the house of the defacto complainant . On going through the contents of the CD, I do not think that there are elements to constitute an offence under Section 452 IPC in this case. It seems that the petitioner had frequent contacts with the defacto complainant woman. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the present stage of investigation, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of

¶34

BA.41/2015

¶35

: 3 :

¶36

the petitioner is required for the continued investigation of this case. Matters being so, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶37

In the result, this bail application is allowed and

¶38

the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for `25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-

¶39

(i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays and Saturdays, commencing from 21.01.2015 for a period of six months.

¶40

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

¶41

BA.41/2015

¶42

: 4 :

¶43

(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶44

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.

¶45

It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

(B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶48

aks/14/01

¶49

// True Copy //

¶50

PA to Judge

Sugathan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugathan 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

Ranjith Vs State of Kerala

Abhijith Vs the State of Kerala

Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Ummer K.P Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Haneefa Vs the State of Kerala