Allowed

Jijith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Sept 2019Bail Appl./5373/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under IPC Sections 323, 354, 451, 294(b) alleging assault and molestation, the High Court granted bail on arrest subject to conditions including reporting intervals, cooperation, no intimidation, no new offences, and restriction from residing near the complainant's police station limits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail on bond of Rs.40,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of reporting, cooperation, and prohibition on entering the complainant's area.

Jijith Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 13TH BHADRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5373 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.176/2019 OF Medical College Police Station , Kozhikode

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

JIJITH AGED 28 YEARS S/O. DAMODARAN, VADAKE KALLADA MITTAL, KUTTIKATTOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE CITY, PIN - 673 008, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.VARGHESE SRI.ANISH PAUL SRI.K.V.SURESH KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUALAM - 682 031.

¶12

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.5373/19

.. 2..

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

B.A. No. 5373 of 2019

¶18

Dated this the 4^th day of September, 2019

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.176/2019 of Kozhikode Medical College Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 451, 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of FI statement given by the lady complainant in respect of the alleged incident which happened on 22.02.2019 at about 6.45 p.m.

¶21

The prosecution case in short is that, the petitioner aged 28 years is living in the immediate neighborhood of the lady defacto complaint, aged 34 years, who is a married women having children and that on 22.02.2019 at about 6.45 p.m, the petitioner had barged into the residence of the lady defacto complainant and pulled her hand and slapped on her face and had abused her using vulgar language in the presence of many other people and that thereby petitioner has committed the aforesaid offences including the violation of modesty of women etc.

¶22

The Counsel for the petitioner would point out that the above said allegations have been falsely foisted on the petitioner, and further that the petitioner is a strong activist of Indian National

¶23

B.A.No.5373/19

¶24

.. 3..

¶25

Congress party and one of his close friend was running a ration shop and the lady defacto complainant's husband who is an activist of the BJP, was complaining that the said ration shop owner has excluded many beneficiaries from the BPL list who happened to be sympathizers of the BJP party and that it is at the instance of the petitioner that the ration shop owner has done that etc. and some altercations have taken place and it is in the context of those disputes that the lady's husband has instigated her to make the above said false allegations. Further that, a reading of the FIR would show that even going by the prosecution case, the main intention of mens rea alleged against the petitioner is that he had gone to the lady's house to assault her and slapped her and that therefore, the prosecution cannot successfully establish that petitioner had mens rea or intention to violate the modesty of the lady, by the above said acts.

¶26

Further, it is pointed out that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for the smooth and effective conduct of the investigation at this phase and that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. The Learned Prosecutor has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and has submitted that there is a strong possibility of the petitioner intimidating or influencing the witnesses, if he is let out on bail as the petitioner is the immediate neighbour of the lady / defacto complainant.

¶27

B.A.No.5373/19

¶28

.. 4..

¶29

After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the nature of the allegations disclosed against the petitioner, this court is inclined to take the view that the petitioner has made out a strong probable case for bail. It is seen that the only non bailable offence alleged in this case is one as per section 354 of the IPC and all the other three offences are bailable offences. The petitioner has made only a strong probable case that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for smooth and effective conduct of the investigation in this crime. Accordingly, it is ordered that on his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on furnishing 2 solvent sureties each, both to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned. However the grant of bail will be subject to the following condition.

¶30

i. The petitioner shall personally appear before the Investigating Officer on every 2^nd and 4^th Saturdays, for the next 4 months and though he shall appear before the Officer, as and when decided by him.

¶31

ii. The petitioner will fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the interrogation process.

¶32

iii. He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the victim, witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶33

iv. He shall not commit any offence while on bail. V. The petitioner shall not enter into or reside within the territorial limits of the Police Station where the lady defacto complainant is

¶34

B.A.No.5373/19

¶35

residing until the conclusion of trial, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer concerned in this cases or other cases, or for attending to the Court in relation to this case or any other cases or for contacting his lawyer/advocate concerned. However if on account of any emergent personal need the petitioner wants to visit the said area, he may do so but only with the prior permission of the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶36

If there is any violation of the above said conditions, then the jurisdictional court concerned stands hereby authorised to consider the plea for cancellation of bail.

¶37

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand finally disposed of.

¶38

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶39

LEK

Jijith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jijith 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

Smitha Vs State of Kerala

Rajith P.K. Vs State of Kerala

Binesh Ninan Vs State of Kerala

Sreelatha K.V. Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

M.Govindankutty Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police