Allowed

T.Daniel@Thampi, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2019Bail Appl./878/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the court granted anticipatory bail to the accused charged under Sections 294(b), 354, and 323 IPC for outraged modesty and insulting behaviour, noting no serious injuries and lack of necessity for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with a bond of Rs.50,000 and two solvent sureties. Applicant directed to appear for interrogation within ten days and on specified Saturdays without arrest.

T.Daniel@Thampi, Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 878 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 343/2019 OF Pathanamthitta Police Station, Pathanamthitta

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

T.DANIEL@THAMPI, AGED 59 YEARS, CHARUVIL HOUSE, KAIPATTOOR POST, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.PIN 689 648

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.M.M.MONAYE SMT.BINCY JOSE

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 031.

¶13

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN 689 645.

¶14

BY SRI AMJAD ALI, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No. 878 of 2019

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

The applicant herein is the sole accused in Crime No.343 of 2019 of the Pathanamthitta Police Station registered under Section 294(b), 354 and 323 of the IPC.

¶21

According to the victim, on 28.01.2019 at 6.30 p.m., when she questioned the act of the applicant in meddling with a pathway leading to her home, he slapped on her face as a result of which her modesty was outraged.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that there is no truth in the allegations. According to the learned counsel, the delay of two days in setting the law in motion has not been explained. He would also contend that the applicant herein is a sexagenarian with no criminal antecedents and prays that he be spared from the rigors of custodial interrogation.

¶23

Bail Appl..No. 878 of 2019

¶24

¶25

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who has made available the case diary.

¶26

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record. The wound certificate shows that no serious injuries were sustained on the body of the victim. Further more, there is some delay in setting the law in motion. The prosecution has no case that the applicant is involved any other crimes. In that view of the matter, the custodial interrogation of the applicant herein is not required for conducting an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶27

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant 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.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶28

i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and

¶29

Bail Appl..No. 878 of 2019

¶30

¶31

shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶32

ii) He 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

iii) he shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶34

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for

¶35

cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

¶40

DSV/1.3.19

T.Daniel@Thampi, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Daniel@Thampi, 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

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Saneesh Xavier Vs State of Kerala

Akbar, Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh.S., Vs State of Kerala

Musthafa Vs State of Kerala

Moosa@Babu, Vs State of Kerala