High Court of Kerala dismissed anticipatory bail application for two petitioners not accused in the crime. Allowed bail for first petitioner, an advocate, against allegations of assault and obstruction, noting doubts about intention to outrage modesty.
Bail allowed for first petitioner; application dismissed regarding second and third petitioners.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/12TH ASWINA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 6766 of 2016 ()
CRIME NO. 1367/2016 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MR.GEORGE THOMAS, RESIDING AT OORAMVELIL HOUSE,
IN EDATHUA VILLAGE OF ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MR.V.G.MADHUSOODANAN, VELLAPPANATTU HOUSE IN CHERTHALA SOUTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA-39.
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MR.SOMAN, MIDHILA HOUSE, POONTHOPPU WARD, AVALUKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENT(S):
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAJJU.S.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
Bail Application No. 6766 of 2016
Dated this the 4th day of October, 2016
ORDER
The first petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No. 1367 of 2016 of Alappuzha North Police Station, registered for offences under Sections 341, 323, 354 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC. The second and the third petitioners are not accused in the above said crime.
The first petitioner is an advocate practicing before the Courts in Alappuzha. The de facto complainant is the Reporter and Bureau Chief of the visual media, namely, Reporter T.V. On 1-09-2016 at about 12.30 p.m., the de facto complainant along with her driver Shri.Ashiq Henry George entered into the premises of the District
B.A. No. 6766 of 2016
: 2 :
Court, Alappuzha, in a car to report the matter relating to the production of 85 Kudumbasree members before the Court. Then, one Advocate told them not to enter into the premises of the Court with the vehicle. Then the said vehicle was parked in front of the Press Club. Thereafter, the de facto complainant and the above said Ashiq entered into the premises of the Court. Then two Advocates prevented the said Ashiq from taking photographs. They also attempted to snatch the Camera from the said Ashiq. At that time, the de facto complainant intervened. Then Advocate Praveen beat on the left shoulder of the de facto complainant. Another Advocate caught her hand forcibly and pulled her. The other advocate slapped and fisted Ashiq on his face.
B.A. No. 6766 of 2016
: 3 :
submitted that even if the entire allegations in the F.I. Statement is accepted as such, there is no material before the Court to indicate that there was any intention on the part of the accused to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant. The only non-bailable offence alleged against the accused in this case is the offence under Section 354 IPC. It appears from the wound certificate appended to the case diary that the de facto complainant had stated to the doctor that her dresses were attempted to be torn by the accused. However, no such statement was given by the de facto complainant before the police. It is not mentioned in the wound certificate about the time of examination of the de facto complainant by the doctor. Having gone through the statement given by the de facto complainant to the police, I am of the view that it is doubtful as to whether the allegations therein would constitute the ingredients for the offence under Section 354 IPC. The first petitioner is a practising lawyer. The first petitioner is not involved in any other offence of similar nature. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the petitioner is a
B.A. No. 6766 of 2016
: 4 :
member of a noble profession, I am of the view that this is a fit case where an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the first petitioner will be justified. Since the second and the third petitioners are not accused in the crime, the application as regards them is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this application stands dismissed as regards the second and the third petitioners and allowed as regards the first petitioner, and the respondent is directed to release the first petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 1367 of 2016 of Alappuzha North Police Station, on condition of the first petitioner 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 arresting officer or the court as may be, and subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The first petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the pendency of this case.
B.A. No. 6766 of 2016
: 5 :
(ii) The first petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.
Sd/-B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.
Ani/
/true copy/
P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to an advocate accused of offences including Raphthly assault and obstruction of justice.
Whether the allegations of attempted outrage of modesty constitute sufficient ground for denying bail to the first petitioner.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MANOJ GEORGE
MANU V.M.
ABHILASH C SOMAN
STATE OF KERALA
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
