Allowed

Jayalal J v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jan 2018Bail Appl./8412/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted pre-arrest bail to a petitioner accused of offences under Sections 354(D)(i) and 341 IPC, and Section 354 IPC. The court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted despite the non-bailable nature of the latter charge.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation, execution of bond, cooperation with investigation, and prohibitions against interfering with witnesses or leaving

Jayalal J Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 18TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8412 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 1208/2017 OF ARYANCODE POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

JAYALAL.J, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. JAYACHANDRAN, MAVARATHALAKAL VEEDU, ALACHALKONNAM, KAZHACHAL P.O., OTTASEKHARMAGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.M.R.SARIN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR, ARYANCODE POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.SAJJU

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶17

B.A.No.8412 of 2017

¶18

Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

2.The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.1208 of 2017 of the Aryancode Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 354(D)(i) & 341 of the IPC.

¶22

3.According to the de facto complainant, who is a Panchayat Member and a lady, the petitioner herein followed her on a bike on 27.11.2017 at 7 pm and tried to block her vehicle. He is also alleged to have made attempts to touch her on a couple of occasions. It appears that a written complaint stating these allegations were submitted on 27.11.2017 before the Sub Inspector of Police Aryancode, based on which the Crime was initially registered under Section 341, 354D(i) of the IPC, which are bailable. Later, a statement of the victim was recorded. While furnishing the said statement, the victim stated that the petitioner herein assaulted her with intent to outrage her modesty. On the strength of the

¶23

B.A.No. 8412 of 2017 2

¶24

aforesaid statement, Sec.354 of the IPC which is nonbailable was incorporated.

¶25

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to Annexure-A1 complaint dated 27.11.2017 to substantiate his contentions.

¶26

5.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone through the Annexure-A1 complaint as well as Annexure-A2 FIR. It appears that at the initial stage the victim had no case that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 354 of the IPC.

¶27

Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the materials in support thereof, the character and antecedents of the petitioner, the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice and other facts and circumstances, it does not appear that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted in the instant case. I am of the view that the relief of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶28

7.In the result, this application is allowed subject to the following conditions.

¶29

B.A.No. 8412 of 2017 3

¶30

i).The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶31

ii)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶32

iii)The petitioner 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.

¶33

iv)The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶34

v)The petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court having jurisdiction.

¶35

v) If he surrenders before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶36

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders

¶37

B.A.No. 8412 of 2017 4

¶38

in accordance with the law.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

IAP //True Copy\ P.A to Judge

Jayalal J v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayalal J 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

Dudu Jonald Jose Vs State of Kerala

Manu Mangattu Vs State of Kerala

Shani Mon Vs State of Kerala

James @ John K John Vs State of Kerala

Nheru Ibrahim Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Shankali Vs State of Kerala