Sudheesh vs State Of Kerala

Shircy V, J

Application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1534 of 2021 of Thiruvalla Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 354

and 354 (1)(i) of IPC.

The prosecution case is as follows:

The petitioner is a colleague of the defacto complainant. On 8.7.2021 at about 7.30 p.m the defacto complainant had called the petitioner to her

residence to repair the damaged fan as he is an expert in that field. When he came there, he deliberately misbehaved to her with the intention to

outrage her modesty and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only on the request of the defacto complainant he went to her residence so as to effect

repair works of a damaged ceiling fan. He had to climb upon the top of a table to repair the fan. The defacto complainant was assisting him to carry

out the work. He repaired the fan and when he was about to get down from the table he slipped and so her assistance was required and thus he got

down from the table. But on a misunderstanding she preferred the complaint against this petitioner. In fact he has not committed any offence

deliberately with the intention to outrage her modesty, but he reached there only to repair the fan as she was his colleague. But he has been falsely

implicated in the case and he is undergoing judicial custody since his arrest.

According to the learned Public Prosecutor the investigation of the case is practically over. In fact the petitioner as well the defacto complainant

are working in the same office. The petitioner is a postman and the defacto complainant is working as a postal assistant. The materials so far collected

by the investigating agency would reveal that he had visited her house as requested by her with the intention to repair the damaged ceiling fan in her

house. Now the allegation is that he deliberately attempted to outrage her modesty, when he tried to get down from the table with the assistance of the

defacto complainant. Whether the case was registered on a misunderstanding or not could be ascertained only on trial. Anyhow now the investigation

of the case has progressed considerably. But I do not find any genuine reason to think that further detention of the petitioner in judicial custody is

required for the investigating agency to complete the investigation of the case and to submit the final report. Hence, this application is allowed and he

is enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions.

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each

to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing, till filing of the final report.

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him

from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

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

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.