Allowed

Yohel v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Apr 2016Bail Appl./2148/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a pre-arrest bail application. Despite allegations of trespass, obscenity, assault, and molestation, the court found no need for custody. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including surrender, bond execution, and restrictions on tampering with witnesses or leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed. Petitioners directed to surrender within two weeks and execute a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.

Yohel Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/6TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2148 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 227/2016 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1-4:

¶8

1. YOHEL @ JOEL P.M., AGED 68, PUNNILATHIL-MELETHIL HOUSE, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SHEELA KOSHI, AGED 37,

¶10

D/O.YOHEL, PUNNILATHIL-MELETHIL HOUSE, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

3. MARY MATHEW, AGED 48, PUNNILATHIL-MELETHIL HOUSE, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶12

4. ASHA SHIBU, AGED 35, W/O.SHIBU, PUNNILATHIL-MELETHIL HOUSE, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH SRI.BIJO THOMAS GEORGE

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶15

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

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶19

B.A. No. 2148 of 2016

¶20

Dated this the 26^th day of April, 2016

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

1.Application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶23

2.The petitioners herein are accused nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.227/2016 of Thiruvalla Police Station. The aforesaid crime has been registered alleging offfences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 447, 427, 354-A r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶24

3.The crux of the prosecution case is that on 21.01.201, at 3.00 pm, petitioners 1 to 4 trespassed into the property of the defacto complainant and the 1^st petitioner is alleged to have uttered obscene words and assaulted her, thus, outraging her modesty. He is also said to have sexually harassed the defacto complainant. Insofar as the 2^nd and 3^rd accused are concerned, they are said to have assaulted the defacto complainant with a stick.

¶25

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

¶26

B.A. No. 2148 of 2016

¶27

..2..

¶28

the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

5.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are pending civil disputes between the parties and the registration of the crime is with a view to humiliate the petitioners herein. It is further submitted that the 1^st petitioner is aged 68 years and the petitioners 2, 3 & 4 are the daughter, sister and daughter-in-law of the 1^st petitioner.

¶30

6.The learned Public Prosecutor would fairly submit that the treatment certificate would not reveal that any injury was sustained by the defacto complainant.

¶31

7.After having heard the rival submissions and the antecedents of the petitioner and other facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that this is not a case, where custodial incarceration of the petitioners is warranted.

¶32

8.In the result, this application is allowed, but, subject to the following conditions;

¶33

1)Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer within a period of two weeks and after interrogation, they shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent

¶34

B.A. No. 2148 of 2016

¶35

..3..

¶36

sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer effecting the arrest. In that event, they shall be released on bail in Crime No.227/2016 of Thiruvalla Police Station.

¶37

2)The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶38

3)The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶39

4)The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶40

5)The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶41

6)The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the jurisdictional magistrate.

¶42

7)In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the officer concerned shall be empowered to arrest the petitioners as if no orders have been passed.

¶43

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. JUDGE

¶44

bka/27.04.16

¶45

//True copy//

¶46

PA to Judge

Yohel v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yohel 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

M.M.Hassan Vs State of Kerala

M. Sheriff Rehman Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Arun Kumar.D and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Joshy Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

Nikhil @ Arun Vs State of Kerala

Dr. a.Jehangeer Vs State of Kerala