Partly allowed

Santhosh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Oct 2018Bail Appl./4493/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appraisal of warnings granted anticipatory bail to petitioners under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving alleged obscene acts and molestation, rejecting it for one accused while granting it to others with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail rejected for petitioner 1; granted to petitioners 2 and 3 subject to complying with specific conditions including surrender and no interference.

Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 9TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4493 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 546/2018 OF Pulikeezhu Police Station , Pathanamthitta

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 SANTHOSH KUMAR AGED 42 YEARS,S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN PILLAI,SARADA NILAYAM,PODIYADI.P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN689110.

¶9

2 SUJITH AGED 36 YEARS,S/O SUGATHAN,PATHIAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,VALANJAVATTOM,KADAPRA,THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN:689104.

¶10

3 SAJITHKUMAR.S AGED 30 YEARS,S/O SUKUMARAN NAIR,LAKSHMI VILASAM,NIRANAM.P.O,THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA,PIN689621.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL SMT.N.S.HASNA MOL

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION,PULIKEEZHU,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689645.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT K K SHEEBA

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.09.2018, THE COURT ON 01.10.2018 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.4493/2018

O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶21

The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in the case registered as Crime No.546/2018 of Pulikeezhu police station under Sections 294(b), 323, 325, 354 and 506(ii) read with 34 I.P.C.

¶22

The prosecution case is as follows: On 08.05.2018, at about 17.00 hours, the de facto complainant was working in the 'thattukada' conducted by her husband. At that time, the three accused together reached there in an autorickshaw. They entered into the shop and the first accused hit on the nose and the face of the de facto complainant with his hand. When she fell down, one of the other accused, took a knife from his pocket and threatened her that he would kill her and her husband and he also kicked her with his right leg. Then one of the other accused caught hold of her dress and tore it. At that time, the first accused caught hold of her breasts from behind with both his hands. When the de facto complainant cried aloud, local people gathered there and then the accused left the place.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

¶24

The non-bailable offence alleged against the accused is under

¶25

B.A.No.4493/2018

¶26

¶27

Section 354 I.P.C. There is a specific allegation against the first petitioner, who is the first accused in the case, that he caught hold of the breasts of the de facto complainant from behind with both his hands. Considering the nature and gravity of the act allegedly committed by the first petitioner, I find that the discretion of the Court cannot be exercised in his favour to grant him the benefit of pre-arrest bail. Providing the protection of pre-arrest bail to the first petitioner would give a wrong message to him and it would create an impression that such or similar acts can be committed with impunity and without any consequences.

¶28

However, the case against the second and the third petitioners, who are the second and the third accused in the case, stands on a different footing. Though there is an allegation that one of them caught hold of the dress of the de facto complainant and tore it, there is no wilful act of outraging the modesty of the de facto complainant alleged against them. Considering the nature and gravity of the acts allegedly committed by the first and the second petitioners, I am inclined to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to them.

¶29

In the result, the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the first petitioner, who is the first accused in the case, is rejected. Prearrest bail is granted to the second and the third petitioners on the following conditions:

¶30

The second and the third petitioners shall be released on bail

¶31

B.A.No.4493/2018

¶32

¶33

on executing a bond for Rs.20,000/- each (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of their

¶34

arrest by the police in Crime No. 546/2018 of Pulikeezhu Police Station.

¶35

The second and the third petitioners shall appear before the

¶36

investigating officer between 9 a.m and 11 a.m on all Saturdays for a period of two months from the date of their release on bail.

¶37

The second and the third petitioners shall not in any manner

¶38

threaten or influence the de facto complainant or other prosecution witnesses in the case.

¶39

The second and the third petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him in writing to do so.

¶40

If the second and the third petitioners violate any of the conditions of bail, the jurisdictional court concerned is at liberty to cancel the bail without any further orders of this Court but in accordance with law.

¶41

(sd/-)

¶42

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

¶43

jsr/29/9/18

¶44

True Copy

¶45

PS to Judge

Santhosh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh Kumar 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

Nishad P.M Vs Sree Dharma Paripalana Yogam

Annie Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Sujith Vs State of Kerala

Aswanth.N Vs State of Kerala

Sooraj U.M Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith T.P. Vs State of Kerala