High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajesh George vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 15 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 KL CK 0226

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dr.Kauser Edappagath, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 341, 354, 354A, 376(1), 451, 509, 511
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 4240 Of 2021
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

25 paragraphs · 445 words

Dr.Kauser Edappagath, J

1.

This is the second application for regular bail filed by the accused in Crime No.217/2021 of Muvattupuzha Police Station u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. The

offences alleged are under Sections 451, 354, 354A, 509, 341 and 511 of 376 (1) of IPC.

2.

The prosecution case in short is that, on 25/1/2021, at 12.00 noon, petitioner criminally trespassed into the beauty parlour where the victim works

and using criminal force, outraged her modesty by pressing on her private parts and further attempted to commit rape on her and thereby committed

the offence.

3.

Heard both sides and perused the case diary.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He

further submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and hence he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public

Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He contended that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the petitioner and

if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would affect the course of investigation.

5.

The petitioner is in custody since 26/1/2021. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is over and charge-sheet has already been

filed. In the circumstances, I am of the view that further detention of the petitioner is not necessary. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted

that the petitioner is a native of Pathanamthitta, the victim is a native of Kothamangalam and as such, petitioner may be restrained for the time being

from entering into the jurisdiction of the Ernakulam Sessions Division. I am of the view that the said request is reasonable. For these reasons, I hold

that the petitioner can be released on bail.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for `1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each

to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdiction of the Ernakulam Sessions Division until further orders.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of like nature while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or any other way try to

tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The petitioner shall not leave State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.