High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner in a case involving sexual harassment and assault allegations, noting doubts about the genuineness of the FIR lodged by the complainant.
Anticipatory bail allowed subject to the condition of appearing for interrogation, executing a bond, and not influencing witnesses.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.2247 OF 2020
CRIME NO.2/2020 OF Padagiri Police Station , Palakkad
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
BHAKTHAVALSAN, AGED 57 YEARS S/O.THEYYELAN, KAIRALI ESTATE, KARAPPARA, NELLIYAMPATHI VILLAGE, PADAGIRI P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678508.
BY ADV. SRI.GIKKU JACOB
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT :
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031 (CRIME NO.2/2020 OF PADAGIRI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT).
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PADAGIRI POLICE STATION, PADAGIRI P.O., PALAKKAD-678508.
SMT.M.N.MAYA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.2247 OF 2020
2
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
Bail Application No.2247 of 2020
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2020.
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Bail Appl..No.2247 OF 2020
3
that the case is a falsely foisted one at the instance of a few other persons, against whom the petitioner had lodged a complaint to the Police, and this court dismissed the said application as per Annexure A2 order holding that there are no materials to reasonably connect the accusation in the complaint with the defacto complainant.
Bail Appl..No.2247 OF 2020
4
been registered on the basis of the same, is not disputed by the respondents. Similarly the fact that the petitioner has lodged a complaint on 31.12.2019 concerning the occurrence took place on 30.12.2019 as stated by him in the Bail Application and on a reference of the said complaint by the District Superintendent of Police, Crime No.3 of 2020 was registered, is also not disputed by the respondents. Annexure A4 is the First Information Report in Crime No.3 of 2020 and Annexure-A1 is the First Information Report in Crime No.2 of 2020. It is seen that the occurrences in both the First Information Reports are alleged to have taken place at the very same time and place namely 4.30 p.m on 30.12.2019. As such, one among them is certainly a false case. As stated by the petitioner, Annexure-A1 case in respect of which the petitioner seeks bail is one reported only at 7.14 pm on 1.1.2020 whereas the occurrence referred to by the petitioner was reported to the police on 30.12.2019 itself. In a case of this nature, according to me, this Court ought to have granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Since the earlier application for bail preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by this court without taking note of the aforesaid facts which would create a reasonable doubt as to the genuineness of Annexure A1 case, the said decision, according to me does not create any fetter on the power of this court in granting anticipatory bail sought for by the
Bail Appl..No.2247 OF 2020
5
petitioner.
In the result, the Bail Application is allowed subject to the following conditions;
i) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. He shall also make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so;
ii) If the petitioner is arrested prior to, or after his appearance before the Investigating Officer in terms of this order, he shall be released from custody on execution of a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum.
(iii) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution.
iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other offence while on bail.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
rkj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the present allegations of sexual harassment and assault.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bhakthavalsan
State of Kerala
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
