Allowed

Narayanan T v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2018Bail Appl./8701/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding an accusation of indecent assault under Sections 354B and 451 IPC, the petitioner claimed false implication and delay. Sustaining that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail subject to specific conditions including appearance for interrogation and cooperation with investigators.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to appearing for interrogation, weekly cooperation with investigation for one month, no inducement of witnesses, and no repetition of similar offence.

Narayanan T 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

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 15TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8701 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 273/2017 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

NARAYANAN T, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O KELU NAIR, RANJINI NIVAS, PUNNAPPALA POST, WANDOOR VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶12

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WANDOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 328.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Hr....

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J

¶18

B.A No.8701 of 2017

¶19

Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2018

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1.This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of

¶22

Criminal Procedure.

¶23

2.The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.273 of 2017 of Wandoor Police Station registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 354B and 451 of the IPC.

¶24

3.The petitioner herein is a Security worker and the victim in the instant case is the attender at the Taluk Government Hospital, Wandoor. According to the prosecution, on 11.11.2017 at about 1 a.m., the petitioner entered the room where the victim was sleeping and tried to hug her. When she resisted, the petitioner is alleged to have made an attempt to tear off her blouse and thereafter kissed her. She, however, managed to scare him off by inflicting a pin prick.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He contends that there is undue delay in setting the law in motion.

¶26

B.A No.8701 of 2017

¶27

¶28

According to the learned counsel, in respect of an incident which took place on 1.11.2017, the F.I. Statement was lodged after 8 days on 19.11.2017. She has not even raised a complaint before the higher authorities. There were some dispute between the de facto complainant and the petitioner when the victim refused to attend to the patients who came to hospital late in the night. This, according to the learned counsel, prompted the victim to lay a false and belated complaint raising false allegations.

¶29

5.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. It was submitted that proper explanation was furnished by the victim for the delay .

¶30

6.I have considered the submissions advanced and I have

¶31

gone through the case diary. From the tenor of the complainant and the attendant materials which are found in the case diary, I am satisfied that the petitioner had made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail. His custodial interrogation does not appear to be required in the facts of the instant case.

¶32

In the result, this bail application is allowed. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶33

B.A No.8701 of 2017

¶34

¶35

i) The petitioner shall appear before the investigation 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.

¶36

ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on every Saturdays for a period of one month or until final report is filed which ever is earlier.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶41

jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶44

ps/5/1/2017

Narayanan T v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayanan T 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

Siju Vs State of Kerala

P v Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Johny Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Dudu Jonald Jose Vs State of Kerala

Manu Mangattu Vs State of Kerala

Shani Mon Vs State of Kerala