Allowed

Manoj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Feb 2021Bail Appl./24/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to accused persons charged with offences under Sections 447, 323, 324, 294(b), and 354 IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC. The court held that custodial interrogation was not absolutely necessary for the investigation considering the familial context of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties, conditioned to appear for interrogation, cooperate with trial, and not influence witnesses.

Manoj Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.24 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1280/2020 OF Anchuthengu Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :-

¶8

1 MANOJ AGED 38 YEARS NEDIYAVILAKAM HOUSE, MAMPALLY DESOM, ANCHUTHENGU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶9

PIN - 695309.

¶10

2 CARMEL AGED 63 YEARS NEDIYAVILAKAM HOUSE, MAMPALLY DESOM, ANCHUTHENGU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 695309

¶11

3 SELVI AGED 28 YEARS NEDIYAVILAKAM HOUSE, MAMPALLY DESOM, ANCHUTHENGU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 695309

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA PIN - 682031

¶15

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANCHUTHENGU POLICE STATION ANCHUTHENGU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL PIN - 695309

¶16

AJITH MURALI- P.P

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No.24 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Dated this the 9th day of February 2021

¶22

Application for pre-arrest bail.

¶23

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in

¶24

Crime No.1280 of 2020 of Anchuthengu Police

¶25

Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324, 294(b), 354 r/w

¶26

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

follows :-

¶28

The petitioners and the defacto

¶29

complainant are neighbours. On 14.12.2020 at

¶30

about 09.30 am these petitioners have trespassed into the residential compound of the defacto complainant and assaulted her on the wrong notion

¶31

that she had teased the minor child of the third

¶32

petitioner. They have beaten her with a frond causing injuries and also pushed her down and

¶33

Bail Appl..No.24 OF 2021

¶34

¶35

attempted to disrobe her and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶36

petitioners as well the learned Public

¶37

Prosecutor.

¶38

would submit that in fact the daughter of the third petitioner is only 9 years old. A pathway is lying in front of the house of the defacto complainant. Whenever the minor child passes through the pathway, the defacto complainant used to tease her in vulgar language. On hearing the vulgar comments from the side of the defacto complainant, the minor child is getting depressed. On inquiry, the petitioners learnt

¶39

about the comments made by this defacto

¶40

complainant towards the minor child and that was questioned by them. Then arose a scuffle between them and in the incident on 15.12.2020 somehow or

¶41

other she sustained some minor injury. In fact,

¶42

Bail Appl..No.24 OF 2021

¶43

¶44

they did not attack the defacto complainant as

¶45

alleged by the prosecution and they never

¶46

misbehave to her with the intention to outrage

¶47

her modesty. But they have been falsely implicated in the case. Apprehending arrest and torture by the police this application is filed.

¶48

The learned Public Prosecutor has

¶49

submitted that the investigation of the case is well in progress.

¶50

The third petitioner is the daughter-in-

¶51

law of the second petitioner. The first petitioner is the brother-in-law of the third

¶52

petitioner. They are residing in a house situated

¶53

close to the residential house of the defacto complainant.

¶54

It is revealed from the records that the

¶55

third petitioner is having a minor child aged

¶56

only 9 years. The defacto complainant used to

¶57

tease her quite often in vulgar language and that has caused some mental trauma to the minor child

¶58

Bail Appl..No.24 OF 2021

¶59

¶60

and she is depressed by the said illegal act of

¶61

abuse by the defato complainant . In fact, that

¶62

was the reason for the minor scuffle between

¶63

them. But from the materials so far collected by

¶64

the prosecution, I do not think that the

¶65

custodial interrogation of these petitioners are absolutely necessary for the prosecution to

¶66

proceed with the investigation of the case. Such being the case, I think that pre-arrest bail can be granted to these petitioners subject to the following conditions :-

¶67

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the event of their arrest.

¶68

(ii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing.

¶69

(iii) They shall co-operate with the

¶70

investigation and trial of the case.

¶71

Bail Appl..No.24 OF 2021

¶72

¶73

(iv) They 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶74

(v) They shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶75

In case of violation of any of the above

¶76

conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to

¶77

cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

SHIRCY V. JUDGE

¶80

SMA

Manoj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Syamala Vs State of Kerala

Pramod Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Irshad Vs State of Kerala

Sarath Vs State of Kerala

Murali S Vs State of Kerala