Allowed

Arun B. S. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2022Bail Appl./31/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by two accused persons alleged to have committed offenses under the IPC including Section 354. The court opined that Section 354 may not be attracted even if allegations are true and that custody interrogation was unnecessary, granting bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail directed subject to execution of bonds with sureties, appearance before investigating officer, no contact with complainant, and no new crimes.

Arun B. S. Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 13TH MAGHA, 1943

¶4

BAIL APPL. NO. 31 OF 2022

¶5

CRIME NO.848/2021 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1834/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS

¶7

COURT,THALASSERY

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶9

1 ARUN B. S. AGED 29 YEARS S/O. BALARAJ, NARAYANATHUVILLA, PARASSALA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695502.

¶10

2 MITHUN RAMAKRISHNAN AGED 22 YEARS S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, CHERUVILAYIL HOUSE, P. O. KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR - 670 651.

¶11

BY ADVS. M.K.SUMOD ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) VIDYA M.K.

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶13

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

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI. M.C. ASHI (PP)

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.31/2022

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶21

The petitioners are accused in Crime No.848/2021 of Edakkad Police Station, Kannur District alleging commission of offences under Sections 341, 354, 354(D), 294(b) & 506 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. There appears to have been some disputes between the petitioners and the de facto complainant, who are employees in a Hospital. While the petitioners work in the Canteen, the de facto complainant is stated to be a Staff Nurse. It appears that, following some disputes between them, the petitioners are alleged to have caught hold of the de facto complainant by her breast and pushed her against a wall and assaulted her, as a result of which they are alleged to have committed the offences in question.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is that under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that, at any rate, even assuming, without conceding, that all the statements in the First Information Statement of the de facto complainant are true, the petitioners cannot be accused of having committed the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that, to attract the provisions of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be use of criminal force or assault with the intention of outraging the modesty of the de facto complainant. It is submitted that there is no allegation which would suggest that there was

¶23

B.A.No.31/2022

¶24

¶25

an attempt by the petitioners to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor with reference to the First Information Statement of the de facto complainant, points out the nature of the allegations raised by the de facto complainant against the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners and the de facto complainant are working in the same institution and the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners may not be conducive as there is every chance that the petitioners may either influence the de facto complainant or indulge in further offences against her. It is also pointed that the intention of the accused in assaulting the de facto complainant was to prevent her from filing a complaint against them for harassing her.

¶27

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am prima facie of the opinion that there is merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code may not be attracted, even if the allegations in the First Information Statement are taken to be true. Further, I am of the opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶28

In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Crime No. 848/2021 of Edakkad Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

¶29

B.A.No.31/2022

¶30

¶31

(i) Petitioners shall execute separate bonds for sums of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶32

(ii) Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No. 848/2021 of Edakkad Police Station at 9 a.m. on 7.2.2022 and thereafter whenever called upon to do so;

¶33

(iii) Petitioners shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.848/2021 of Edakkad Police Station;

¶34

(iv) Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶35

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No. 848/2021 of Edakkad Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶36

Any observation in this order shall not be construed as a finding by this Court on any issue. The observations are only for the purpose of considering the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioners for bail.

¶37

sd/-

¶38

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶39

acd

Arun B. S. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun B. S. v. the 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

Sumesh, Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sahail N K Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Salam, Vs State of Kerala

Suhaid Vs State of Kerala

Umesh Krishnan Vs State of Kerala