High CourtsSingle Bench

Ajithkumar vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 6 March 2023 · Citation: (2023) 03 KL CK 0046

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr Kauser Edappagath, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 154, 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 354
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1809 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 554 words

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

1.

This application is filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

2.

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.292/2023 of Sooranadu Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 154, 294(b), 323, 341, 324 and 354 of the IPC.

3.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 24.2.2023 at 8.30 pm, while the defacto complainant along with her husband came to Malanada temple compound for participating in Pallippana ceremony, the applicant due to his previous enmity, used abusive words against the husband and assaulted him with hands and when the defacto complainant intervened, the applicant pulled her down, tored her dress and thereby committed the offences.

4.

I have heard Sri. P.V. Dileep, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. V.S. Sreejith, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime; hence, he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and if he is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

6.

The only non bailable offence alleged is under Section 354 of the IPC. I went through the FIS. It would show that there was a scuffle between the applicant and the husband of the defacto complainant and when the defacto complainant intervened, the applicant assaulted her and tored her dress. There is nothing to suggest that the said act was done by the applicant with intent to outrage her modesty. Considering the allegations levelled against the applicant, his custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary. For these reasons, it is a fit case where pre-arrest bail can be granted to the applicant.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.

(ii) The applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.