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 · 586 wordsDr Kauser Edappagath, J
This application is filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.
The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.73/2023 of Thiruvalla Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 354, 354-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, in short, is that on 13.01.2023 at about 12.15 p.m., in front of her shop, the applicant abused the de facto complainant and her husband and assaulted the husband of the de facto complainant. When the de facto complainant intervened, the applicant assaulted her as well and pulled her nighty with the intention to outrage her modesty and thereby committed the offences.
I have heard Sri.Sasith M.R., the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.P.M.Prasanth, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
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, she 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 she is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.
A reading of the F.I.S would show that the alleged incident took place during the scuffle between the applicant and the husband of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant intervened in the matter and at that time, the applicant allegedly pulled her nighty. There is nothing to indicate that the said act was done with the intention to outrage her modesty. That apart, there is civil dispute between the parties. The applicant has obtained an injunction from the Munsiff's Court against the de facto complainant and another as evident from Annexure-A2. There is a counter case as well. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Considering the allegations levelled against the applicant, her 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 her 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 herself 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. She 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.
