Anticipatory bail application dismissed. Court held that the identifying report and the accused's flight from investigation precluded bail despite discrepancies in the Early FIR description. Nature of offence and stage of investigation were decisive.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; no bail granted.
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.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 9018 OF 2021
CRIME NO.128 OF 2021 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER:
FIROSE BABU, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, PANNAMBIYILKUNNE HOUSE, PULLARA, POOKKOTTUR, VELLUVAMBRAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 642.
BY ADV P.VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANJERI POLICE STATION, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 121.
SRI.M.C.ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 22.12.2021, THE COURT ON 05.01.2022 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2
B.A.No.9018 of 2021
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
B.A.No. 9018 of 2021
----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 5th day of January, 2022
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The defacto complainant is a sales girl in Pullara Supermarket, Pookkoottur. At about 6.15 p.m. on 31.03.2021, she, after her duties in the supermarket, was walking along the paddy field on her way back home. The petitioner came behind and caught her hold of. The petitioner gagged her and when she resisted and tried to wriggle out, he pulled her down. On her falling down, she sustained injuries including a fracture of a bone of her left forearm. She cried aloud and
3
B.A.No.9018 of 2021
then the petitioner escaped on his bullet motorcycle.
4
B.A.No.9018 of 2021
whereas the petitioner as is evident from Annexure 2 does not have bald or beard. The report of the investigating officer, however, would certainly reveal that the defacto complainant saw and identified the petitioner as the assailant. The incident had occurred all of a sudden. The assailant came behind and the defacto complainant, in her attempt to wriggle out of the assailant's captivity might not have been able to notice all the physical features of the assailant. But, when she identified the petitioner as the assailant, his contention based on the mismatch between the description in the FIS and his facial features cannot be reckoned with. Considering the nature of offence, stage of investigation and the fact that the petitioner went into hiding, I am of the view that he is not entitled to get pre-arrest bail.
Therefore the application is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
PV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the investigating officer's report identifying him and his hiding from inquiry.
Whether the discrepancy in the accused's physical description versus his photograph is a valid ground to grant bail in cases of sexual offence.
Whether the petitioner's alleged prior familiarity with the complainant and his business location near the crime scene affects his bail eligibility.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Firose Babu
State of Kerala
P.G. Ajithkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
