Jemsheer vs State Of Kerala And Ors

Appellant is the accused in Crime No.96 of 2021 registered at the Manjeri Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A(1)(i), 354D(1)(i) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act. The crime has been registered at the instance of the 3rd respondent, who alleges that, at about 12.40 p.m on 4.3.2021, the accused caught hold of her right hand and caused injuries by scratching on the hand, pushed her on the chest, caught hold of her churidar and thereby outraged her modesty. Further, the accused abused her in public by calling out her caste name, knowing fully well that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. The accused was arrested on 6.3.2021 and is continuing in custody. The application for bail filed before the Special Court stands rejected by the impugned order.

Sri.Babu S.Nair, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the accused has been in custody for more than 32 days and there is no justification in denying bail to him. It is argued that the 3rd respondent had levelled false allegations against the appellant at the instance of her employer. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent's employer, who is the actual aggressor, had beaten up the appellant by about 1 p.m on 4.3.2021. That, having sustained injuries in the attack, the appellant had gone to the nearby hospital for treatment and had thereafter gone to the police station to lodge a complaint. Since the Police refused to register the FIR, he approached the superior Police Officer and was directed to go back to the police station and was arrested when he went to the Police Station on the second occasion. As regards the findings in the impugned order that the appellant is involved in various crimes and even proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C was initiated against him, learned counsel submitted that in all the cases mentioned in the impugned order, the appellant had been acquitted. That, despite false information having been submitted by the local Police, the Sub Divisional Magistrate refused to initiate action under Section 107. The reason for non-registration of FIR on the appellant's complaint is stated to be the personal animosity of the Circle Inspector and Sub Inspectors of Police towards him, for having filed a civil suit against them. Finally, it is contended that, even if the allegations are accepted for the sake of argument, there is no reason to deny bail after 32 days of custody.

Smt.Ambika Devi, learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant is a history-sheeter involved in various other crimes and the action of the appellant of catching hold of the 3rd respondent in public, outraging her modesty and abusing her by calling caste name are grievous offences. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the Special Court having passed a well reasoned order, no interference is warranted in appeal.

Sri.T.K.Ajitkumar, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent also opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant is a notorious criminal, who do not deserve leniency. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent apprehends further attack from the appellant, if he is released on bail.

Having heard the respective counsel and having considered the seriousness of the offences committed by the appellant and the period of custody undergone by him, I am inclined to allow the appeal. Even though the alleged offences are serious in nature, that is no justification for continuing the appellant's custody. The investigation having achieved progress, release of the appellant on bail would not hamper the investigation in any manner. The apprehension of the appellant causing harm to the 3rd respondent can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed as under;

I) The appellant shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the lower court.

II) The appellant shall not enter the limits of the Manjeri Police Station for a period of one month.

III) The appellant shall not make any attempt to intimidate or contact the 3rd respondent.

IV) The appellant shall not commit any similar offence during the subsistence of this order.

If any one of the above conditions is violated, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of the appellant's bail.