High CourtsSingle Bench

Babu V vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 13 February 2023 · Citation: (2023) 02 KL CK 0128

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 294(b) 323, 324, 354, 354B, 427
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 991 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

14 paragraphs · 549 words

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

1.

This is an application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

2.

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.45/2023 of Thrikkodithanam Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 354 B, 294(b) and 427 read with 34 of the IPC.

3.

The prosecution case in short is that on 7.1.2023 at about 7.15 pm, the petitioners trespassed into the shop run by the husband of the defacto complainant and his friend Sri.Sajith and assaulted the latter who was present in the shop and when the defacto complainant interfered, they assaulted her by pressing her breast with intent to outrage her modesty and thereby committed the offences.

4.

Heard both sides and perused the case diary.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are absolutely innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime and hence they are entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He contended that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the petitioners and if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it would affect the course of investigation.

6.

The non bailable offences alleged are under Sections 354 and 354 B of the IPC. A reading of the FIS would show that, in fact, the petitioners trespassed into the shop of the husband of the defacto complainant with intent to assault the friend of the husband of the defacto complainant namely, Sajith and when the defacto complainant intervened, they assaulted her also. There is nothing to suggest that the defacto complainant was assaulted by the petitioners with intent to outrage her modesty. That apart, the learned Prosecutor submitted that the recovery has arelady been effected. Considering the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners does not appear to be necessary. For all these reasons, the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail on conditions.

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

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each 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 petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation, including subjecting themselves to the deemed police custody for the purpose of discovery, if any, as and when demanded.

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

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

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

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