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 · 472 wordsBechu Kurian Thomas, J
This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1081/2022 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha District. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 354, 354B, 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to the prosecution, on 14.11.2022 at around 9 pm, while the defacto complainant’s husband was performing a musical show during a wedding reception, the accused assaulted the defacto complainant and outraged her modesty and also abused her and thereby committed the offences alleged.
Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri.P.Martin Jose, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and that the incident as alleged had not occurred. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that petitioner was in fact assaulted by the defacto complainant and to cover up the said conduct, an offence has been alleged against the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that, even if the entire prosecution allegations are assumed to be true, still, an offence under Section 354 of the IPC is not made out and the remaining offences being all bailable, inclusion of the said offfence is with an oblique motive. In any event, it was submitted that petitioner was arrested on 15.11.2022 and hence, further detention is not essential in the circumstances of the case.
Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the grant of bail and submitted that the prosecution allegations are serious and that the petitioner is alleged to have committed a serious offence, and if the petitioner is released on bail at this juncture, there is every possibility of him, intimidating and influencing the witnesses.
I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the statement of the victim.
Even though the allegations are serious, considering the period of detention already undergone and also the circumstances surrounding the allegations, further detention is not essential.
Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-
(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.
(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the defacto complainant or her family members.
(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
