High CourtsSingle Bench

Nabeel P.S. vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 9 April 2024 · Citation: (2024) 04 KL CK 0098

HON’BLE JUDGES
A. Badharudeen, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 354A(1)(I), 354 D(1)(I), 509
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 2066 Of 2024
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

13 paragraphs · 486 words

A. Badharudeen, J

1.

This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail and the petitioner is the sole accused in crime No.120/2024 of Cherupuzha Police Station, Kannur, where the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 354 A(1)(I), 354 D(1)(I) and 509 of IPC.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant materials available.

3.

The prosecution case is that, at about 17.30 hours on a day in the month of November 2023, the accused herein grabbed the hand of the defacto complainant with sexual intention at the bus waiting shed of Vayakkara Amson Kakkayamchal and thereby committed the above said offences.

4.

While pressing for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and the prosecution allegations are false. According to him, even as per the prosecution allegations, the same do not constitute the offences alleged in this crime. Therefore, the petitioner deserves bail and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant of bail and placed the relevant documents form part of the case diary and submitted that the prosecution allegations as to grabbing of hand of the defacto complainant with sexual intention was made out, prima facie.

6.

On perusal of the prosecution records, no serious overt act at the instance of the petitioner, warranting detention of the petitioner was made out. It appears that by directing the petitioner to co-operate with the investigation by subjecting himself for interrogation, effective investigation is possible in this case. Thus, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, with direction to the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and to aid the investigation.

Therefore, this petition stands allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on pre-arrest bail on conditions:

i. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioner, record his statement, if necessary. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the Jurisdictional Court on the date of arrest itself.

ii. On such production, Jurisdictional Court shall release the petitioner on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) each, by himself and by two sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.

iii. The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so.

iv. The petitioner, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner.

v. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.