High CourtsSingle Bench

Arjun G. vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 4 June 2024 · Citation: (2024) 06 KL CK 0026

HON’BLE JUDGES
A. Badharudeen, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354, 354A, 354D, 509
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 3350 Of 2024
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

13 paragraphs · 487 words

A. Badharudeen, J

1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail at the instance of the sole accused in crime No.311/2024 of Perambra Police Station, Kozhikode.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the available materials.

3.

The prosecution allegation is that the accused herein, who was none other than the office attender in AUP school, Kalpathur, subjected the de facto complainant, who is a teacher therein, to physical assault by holding her body and showing sexual overtures during the months of June and July in the year 2022 in and around the staff room and premises. On this premise, this prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 354D and 509 of IPC.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and the allegations are false. According to her, the management of the school is in enemical terms with the petitioner and as per Annexure A3, the petitioner submitted resignation letter for multiple reasons. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this case is foisted at the juncture of the teacher by the management.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant of anticipatory bail, in a case where the ingredients to attract offence under Section 354 of IPC could be gathered prima facie. It appears that FIR was registered only on 06.04.2024 even though the allegations are during the period 01.06.2022 to 31.07.2022. Therefore, investigation of this case is well possible even without arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Therefore, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

In the result, this bail application stands allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail on the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioner and record his statement. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the Jurisdictional Court on the date of arrest itself.

ii) On such production, Jurisdictional Court shall release the petitioner on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand), with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.

iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so.

iv) The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner.

v) The petitioner shall not meet or disturb the victim or her family in any manner, if any thing in this regard is noticed by this Court, the same alone is a ground to cancel the bail hereby granted.

vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.