Dismissed

Jinu v. State of Kerala

In cases under Section 354 IPC – outrage of modesty

Kerala HC16 Jun 2016Bail Appl./3521/2016

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 354 IPC alleging assault on a woman, the High Court of Kerala held that mere assault does not attract the section without sexual intent. The petitioners was directed to approach the Magistrate for regular bail, and the application was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petitioner directed to approach Magistrate for regular bail; bail application disposed of.

Jinu 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 P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/26TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3521 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 897/2016 OF KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :

¶8

JINU

¶9

S/O. MANIKKUTTAN, AGED 18, PUTHOOR THEKKATHIL, PATHIYUR KALAMURI, PATHIYUR VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

B.A No.3521 of 2016 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 16^th June, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner herein, who is the second accused in Crime No.897 of 2016 of the Kareelakulangara Police Station, seeks pre-arrest bail on the apprehension of arrest. The said crime involves the offence under Sections 294, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the allegation under Section 354 I.P.C, the petitioner apprehends that he would be remanded to judicial custody by the learned Magistrate in case he surrendered for regular bail. On a perusal of the complaint, I find that what is prominently alleged in the complaint is only an instance of assault. It is well settled that a mere assault on a woman will not by itself come under Section 354 I.P.C. For such a prosecution, something more is required like sexual intent. I feel it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate for regular bail in this case. The learned Magistrate will have to examine the whole case records, and see whether this is in fact a case of

¶21

B.A No.3521 of 2016

¶22

¶23

outrage of modesty. Giving such liberty to the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate for regular bail, this bail application is disposed of.

Sd/-

P.UBAID

JUDGE

/True copy/

P.S to Judge

Crime No.'897 of 2016' occurring in the 2^nd line of the final order dated 16.06.2016 in B.A No.3521/2016 is corrected and substituted as “Crime No.397/2016” as per order dated 15/7/2016 in Crl.M.A No.7076/2016 in B.A No.3521/2016.

¶31

Sd/- Registrar Judicial

Jinu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jinu 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

Basheer Vs the State of Kerala

Eldhose K.G Vs State of Kerala

Udyan T.N Vs State of Kerala

P.A Cheriyan Vs State of Kerala

Jibi Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala