Allowed

Rasak.M v. the State of Kerala through the Station House Officer

Kerala HC2 Apr 2019Bail Appl./348/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted pre-arrest bail (anticipatory bail) to the petitioner in a case alleging criminal trespass and outrage of modesty. The court held the offence was not grave enough to deny relief, subject to conditions of surrender and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each.

Rasak.M Vs the State of Kerala through the Station House… — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 348 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 3/2019 OF Chittarikal Police Station , Kasargod

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

RASAK.M AGED 37 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI, RESIDING AT VAYAKKARA HOUSE, PADIYOTTUCHAL P.O., PADIYOTTUCHAL VILLAGE, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI SRI.A.MANIKANDAN

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

P.P - SRI. E.C.BINEESH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

Bail Appl..No. 348 of 2019

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The sole accused seeking pre-arrest bail in crime No.3/2019 registered under sections 294(B), 452, 324, 323 and 354 of Chittarikkal Police Station alleges that he is falsely implicated in this crime.

¶18

The learned Public Prosecutor produced CD and I heard both

¶19

sides.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 04/01/2019, at

¶21

3.30 pm, he criminally trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and after using obscene words, outraged her modesty. But the first Information Statement doesn't disclose that he had any intention to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant. The matter is under investigation and the intention is yet to be revealed. In any view of the matter, having regard to the allegations made against the petitioner, I do not find that the offence of alleged outrage of modesty is a grave one warranting dismissal of prayer for anticipatory bail. In the said circumstances, plea for pre-arrest bail is granted.

¶22

In the event of the petitioner being arrested, he shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent

¶23

¶24

Bail Appl..No. 348 of 2019

¶25

sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:

¶26

He shall thereafter appear before the Investigating Officer on

¶27

every sunday between 10 am and 11 am for a period of 2 months if investigation is not completed in the meantime.

¶28

He shall fully co-operate with the investigation and shall not cause any threat, intimidation or influence the defacto complainant.

¶29

If any of these conditions stand violated, the same shall be reported by the Investigating Officer to the Court where the matter is pending and the said court will proceed to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR

Nsd

JUDGE

//true copy// PA to Judge

Rasak.M v. the State of Kerala through the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasak.M v. the State of Kerala through the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saji Franco Vs State of Kerala

Ammini Vs State of Kerala

T.B. Abdul Rahiman Vs State of Kerala

Sreekanth.K.G Vs State of Kerala

Sandhyamol Vs State of Kerala

S.Jalaludheen Vs the State of Kerala