Allowed

Baiju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2016Bail Appl./1501/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to an accused charged with trespass, molestation, and molestation of a woman by force. The court held that custodial interrogation might not be essential due to the nature of evidence but imposed specific conditions to prevent intimidation and trespass.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to conditions including appearance before the IO within ten days, execution of a bond for Rs. 40,000 with two sureties, and a direction not to trespass into the complainant's hous

Baiju Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/18TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1501 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 86/2016 OF KATTAKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

BAIJU, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.TITUS, SYMPHONY VEEDU, KUTTICHAL, PARUTHIPALLY POST, MANNOORKKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.CLARANCE MIRANDA SRI.V.S.THOSHIN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

B.A.No.1501 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.86/2016 of Kattakkada Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 354A of the IPC.

¶20

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 03.01.2016 at 4.30 p.m., the petitioner herein trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, who is a married woman, kissed her and tore her dress and under garments. He also pressed her chest. A private complaint was laid and the crime was registered. The petitioner apprehends arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner contented, referring to the detailed statement in the bail application about the various disputes pending between the petitioner herein as well as the husband of the de facto complainant, in relation to a piggery run by the couple.

¶21

¶22

B.A.No.1501 of 2016

¶23

It appears that various authorities were

¶24

moved by the parties seeking appropriate relief. Even in the case diary, there is an indication about this long pending dispute between the parties. The allegation against the petitioner herein has to be appreciated in this back ground in the private complaint.

¶25

Having regard to the fact that the essential allegation constituting the offences under Sections 354 and 354A are to be established solely by the oral testimony of the de facto complainant herein are to be corroborated by the eye witnesses, if any, I feel that a custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be essential and bail can be granted to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶26

(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty

¶27

B.A.No.1501 of 2016

¶28

¶29

thousand only) with two sureties for the like

¶30

sum each.

¶31

(b) He shall not trespass into the house of the de facto complainant or her piggery, shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or her witnesses or cause any annoyance to her peaceful living.

¶32

(c) He shall appear before the Investigating

¶33

Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶34

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶37

Baiju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baiju 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

Arun B Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Krishnankutty Vs State of Kerala

Amal Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

S.R.Sudheesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala