Allowed

T.S. Arjunan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Sept 2016Bail Appl./5819/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted pre-arrest bail to the second accused in a rape case. Although the victim alleged outrage of modesty against the petitioner in her complaint and statements, the investigating officer had not incorporated Section 354 IPC in the charges. Relying on the incomplete investigation against the petitioner, the court released him on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with two sureties for ₹50,000 each. Conditions: report once a week, confine to Vizhinjam Police Station limits, and avoid contact with witnesses.

T.S. Arjunan Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/16TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5819 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1817/2015 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

T.S. ARJUNAN,

¶9

S/O T.V.SADASIVAN, AGED 57 YEARS, USHA BHAVAN, PARAVILA, KOVALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

P.UBAID, J.

¶18

============================

¶19

B.A.No.5819 of 2016

¶20

============================ Dated this the 7^th day of September, 2016

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under

¶23

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.1817 of 2015 of the Vizhinjam Police Station, initially registered under Sections 406, 420, 323, 376 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He is the second accused in the crime.

¶24

The victim of offence in this case is a lady aged

¶25

40 years. The allegation practically in her complaint is that she was subjected to rape by the first accused. As against the third accused, definite allegations are not seen in the complaint. She appears to be the broker who arranged job for the victim at the house of the first accused. The police report shows that Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST now stands deleted. The Annexure-B

¶26

B.A.No.5819 of 2016 2

¶27

document produced by the petitioner shows that he is also a member of scheduled caste. Now investigation proceeds only under Sections 420, 406, 323 and 376 IPC. The complainant's specific allegation in her complaint is that she was raped by the first accused. The complaint does not contain any such allegation against the petitioner herein. The only allegation in the complaint as against the petitioner is that he also once came at the house of

¶28

the first accused, and he outraged her modesty. But, the police report does not show that investigation is being conducted under Section 354 IPC. What is practically alleged against the petitioner herein in the complaint, and also in the statements given by the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is an offence under Section 354 IPC. But the police has not so far incorporated such a section, and the investigation still proceeds mainly under Section 376 IPC. There is no allegation of rape against the petitioner herein. It appears that the Investigating Officer has not properly understood the facts of the case, the allegations in the complaint, and also the statements given by the victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. Ofcourse, Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST was rightly deleted, but he did not care to incorporate Section 354 IPC despite the definite

¶29

B.A.No.5819 of 2016 3

¶30

allegation constituting such an offence in the complaint, and also the statements of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. This will have to be seriously considered by the Investigating Officer. Anyway, in the present circumstances where the investigation as against the petitioner is practically over, and that the police does not know what exactly is allegation against the petitioner herein, I feel it appropriate to grant him pre arrest bail.

¶31

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is

¶32

allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 50,000/- (Rupees₹ Fifty Thousand only)each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No.1817 of 2015 of the Vizhinjam Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶33

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Tuesdays for a period of two months.

¶34

b) The petitioner shall not leave the limits

¶35

of the Vizhinjam Police Station for a period of two months.

¶36

B.A.No.5819 of 2016 4

¶37

c) The petitioner shall not in any manner

¶38

influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

Sd/-

P.UBAID, JUDGE

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

T.S. Arjunan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.S. Arjunan 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

Feni Azees Vs Station House Officer

Abdul Rauf.K.M.G Vs the Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Amla Johnson Vs State of Kerala

Sindhu Vs State of Kerala

Pavin Vs State of Kerala

Thankappan Pillai Vs State of Kerala