Hari.V.S vs State Of Kerala

A. Badharudeen, J

The sole accused in Crime No.402/2024 of Kurathikadu Police Station, Alappuzha, seeks regular bail in this petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

I have perused the relevant documents form part of the case diary.

The prosecution case is that at about 13.15 hours on 09.05.2024, while the defacto complainant, who is a practising lawyer in Mavelikkara courts, was attending a marriage function at Nirmalyam auditorium, the accused rubbed his penis on the back of the defacto complainant, then showed his penis and looked at her with sexual overtures. Then he showed signs of sexual assault. When the defacto complainant questioned the same, the accused caught hold of her hand and twisted the hand. This is the base on which the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner, who canvassed regular bail to the petitioner, who has been in custody from 15.05.2024, fervently argued that the allegations are false and some difference of opinion between the accused and the defacto complainant has given the colour of non bailable offences with intention to detain him in custody at the instance of the defacto complainant, who is a practising lawyer knowing the consequence of law. Highlighting the above facts as well as the progress of the investigation and also the stature of the petitioner as a first time offender, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for regular bail to the petitioner.

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that going by the statement of the victim, there is no rivalry otherwise established to implicate the petitioner in a false case and an Advocate was subjected to molestation, that too, in an auditorium. Thereby she was aggrieved and she lodged the complaint on the day itself. Therefore, prosecution case is very well made out, prima facie, and investigation is at the primitive stage. In such a case, immediate release of the petitioner would impede the investigation.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length to convince that the accused was falsely implicated in this case, the prosecution records would not justify the said contention. It appears that there is molestation at the instance of the accused when the defacto complainant was at the auditorium and accordingly she was forced to register a complaint on the date of occurrence itself. Thus the prosecution allegations are well made out, prima facie. However, it appears that the petitioner is a first time offender. Hence taking into consideration of the above fact and the substantive progress in the investigation, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner on conditions.

In the result, this bail application stands allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail on the following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court concerned.

ii. The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for trial.

iii. The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with trial and shall be available for trial.

iv. He shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial court.