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 · 674 wordsA. Badharudeen, J
The 1st accused in Crime No.97 of 2022 of the Kumily Police Station is the petitioner herein and he seeks Regular Bail in this petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
The specific allegation of the prosecution as could be read out from the case diary materials placed by the Public Prosecutor is that, accused Nos.1 to 3 criminally tresspased into the residence of the de-facto complainant, due to animosity prevailing in between the accused and the husband of the de-facto complainant and manhandled the husband of the de-facto complainant. Thereafter the 1st accused disrobed the de-facto complainant and thereby her modesty was alleged to be outraged. On these facts, prosecution alleges commission of offences under Sections 354, 354(A), 354(B), 294(b), 323, 451, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent. He submitted further that the entire allegations are false. According to him, the petitioner was brutally manhandled and he sustained very serious injuries for which Crime No.57/2022 under Section 308 of Indian Penal Code was registered and the said crime is on investigation. In order to substantiate the point that this case is a fabricated one, the learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the delay in registering the FIR. According to him, though the occurence was on 01.01.2022, police not registered any crime suo motu. Finally, a private complaint was filed on 09.02.2022 and as a consequence thereof, crime was registered and the petitioner was detained in custody from 03.03.2022. Highlighting the custody of the petitioner for the last 70 days and the progress of investigation along with genesis of the prosecution case in the context of delay, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for granting regular bail with offer to co-operate with the investigation and also to abide any conditions imposed by this Court.
The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail highlighting the stature of the petitioner as a habitual offender, to whom against show-cause notice already issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. Involvement of the petitioner in 5 other cases also was highlighted in the report while opposing bail. It is true that the petitioner has involvement in 5 other cases and 3 among those include allegation of commission of offences under Sections 326 and 308 of the Indial Penal Code. The tendency of the accused in involving crimes continually is a matter of serious concern. However, the detention of the petitioner in custody for the last 70 days in this crime where serious offences are under Section 451 and 354 is a matter to be addressed. The factual events would lead to hold in favour of the accused to grant bail with strict conditions not to involve in further crimes during the currency of the bail hereby granted.
In view of the above discussions, I am inclined to allow this petition and the petitioner shall be released on bail on the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court concerned.
ii. The petitioner shall co-operate with COVID-19 restrictions.
iii. The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with trial and shall be available for trial.
iv. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the trial court.
v. It is specifically directed that the petitioner shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.
It is made clear that grant of bail in this case is not a hindrance for proceeding against him under KAAPA, as per law.
