Allowed

Abhilash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Mar 2022Bail Appl./40/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application before the Kerala High Court, the judge granted anticipatory bail to an accused charged with molestation and theft. The court noted the absence of criminal antecedents and the lack of necessity for custodial interrogation, ordering release upon execution of a bond and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail upon execution of a bond with sureties and agreement to appear as directed by the investigating officer.

Abhilash Vs 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.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 40 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.2653 OF 2021 OF KATTAKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ABHILASH,

¶9

AGED 30 YEARS,

¶10

S/O. SOBHA, KUNNINPURAM, KUCHAPURAM, AMACHAL P.O., KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 572.

¶11

BY ADV M.R.SARIN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KATTAKADA POLICE STATION, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

BY SMT. SEETHA. S. (SR.PP)

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

BAIL APPL. NO. 40 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶22

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2653 of 2021 of

¶23

Kattakada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 451, 354(A)(i)(iv), 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner trespassed into the house of the de-facto complainant, molested her and took away an amount of Rs.6,000/and thereby he committed the offences alleged against him.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations are absolutely false. It is submitted that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are neighbours and the defacto complainant had abused the wife of the petitioner, who was pregnant and had also thrown stones at her owing to some previous dispute. It is submitted that the petitioner had only gone to the house of the de-facto complainant to question the same and had not committed any offence as alleged. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and at any rate, his custodial interrogation is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the

¶25

BAIL APPL. NO. 40 OF 2022

¶26

¶27

case.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the investigation conducted thus far shows that the allegations against the petitioner are true . The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigating agency has collected CCTV images, which substantially indicate that the allegations raised by the de-facto complainant are true, atleast in part. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail considering the fact that the de-facto complainant is a 70 year old woman.

¶29

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of the allegations, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted bail taking note of the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that his custodial interrogation may not be necessary for a proper investigation into the matter.

¶30

In the result, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.2653 of 2021 of Kattakada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, subject to the following conditions:

¶31

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of

¶32

BAIL APPL. NO. 40 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court;

¶35

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.2653 of 2021 of Kattakada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District at 10.00AM on 18.03.2022 and 19.03.2022 and thereafter, whenever called upon to do so;

¶36

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant or any witness in Crime No.2653 of 2021 of Kattakada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District;

¶37

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

¶38

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.2653 of 2021 of Kattakada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.

¶39

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶40

Abhilash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhilash 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun.v.M Vs State of Kerala

Faizal Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Shonan M.P Vs State of Kerala

Sandeep P.S. Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Fasil Mandayappuram Vs State of Kerala