High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohd.Shadab vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 7 September 2023 · Citation: (2023) 09 KL CK 0047

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gopinath P., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 341, 354, 354 A(1)(i)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 6787 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

12 paragraphs · 531 words

Gopinath P., J

1.

This is an application for regular bail

2.

The petitioner is first accused in Crime No.148/2023 of Railway Police Station, Kottayam District alleging commission of offences under Sections 341, 354, 354 A(1)(i) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 14-07-2023. The allegation against the petitioner and the other accused is that, with an intention to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant and her friend, the petitioner and the other accused restrained the defacto complainant and her friend, when they gone to the bathroom of the general compartment of Train No.12625 (Kerala Express) at about the time when the train reached the Vaikom junction and used criminal force against them with sexual intend and thereby outraged the modesty of the defacto compartment and her friend.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the other accused and the defacto complainant and her friend regarding occupation of seats in the general compartment and on account of the same a false complaint had been filed against the petitioner and the other accused. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for nearly 53 days and further detention of the petitioner at any rate is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, would point out that the petitioner is a native of Uttar Pradesh. It is submitted that if the petitioner is granted bail at this stage, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding. It is submitted that investigation is only progressing and has not been completed so far.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, would submit that the petitioner will be entitled to statutory bail on completing 60 days in custody and since the investigation is not complete there is no likelihood of a final report being filed before the petitioner becomes entitled to statutory bail.

Taking into consideration the above facts and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner will be entitled to statutory bail on completion of 60 days in custody, this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. One among the sureties shall be a local surety;

(ii) The Petitioner shall report before the Investigating officer in Crime No.148/2023 of Railway Police Station, Kottayam District as and when summoned to do so;

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate the defacto complainant or any witness in Crime No.148/2023 of Railway Police Station, Kottayam District;

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.148/2023 of Railway Police Station, Kottayam District may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.