Thomas.P.P vs State Of Kerala

Shircy V, J

Apprehending arrest in Crime No.925 of 2020 of Mannuthy Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452,341,324 and

354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code this petitioner who is the 2nd accused has preferred this application under Section 438 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure.

The prosecution allegation is that on 16.11.2020 at 1.00 a.m in the night this petitioner along with the first accused had trespassed into the residential

house of the defacto complainant which is only a shed made of thin sheet and outraged the modesty of his wife by using criminal force. When the

defacto complainant intervened he was attacked by the accused by hitting with a brick on his chest and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

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

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. He was an employee of

the first accused who used to attend his work during night. The first accused had taken his mobile phone and identity card and it was lost somewhere

near the residential house of the defacto complainant. When this petitioner got information about the same from his employer/ the first accused, he

went to the premises in search of his mobile phone and identity card. At that time the defacto complainant on some misunderstanding attacked this

petitioner. In fact he is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. But he apprehends unnecessary arrest and hence, this application.

On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the defacto complainant and her husband are natives of Assam. They are

residing here to attend some labour works. So they are residing in a temporary shed made of thin sheet. In the night at 1.00 a.m on that particular day

this petitioner along with the first accused trespassed into that shed and attempted to outrage of the modesty of the wife of the defacto complainant.

When she raised hue and cry, her husband who was sleeping in the very same shed woke up and interfered and tried to save his wife from the

clutches of this petitioner and the other. He too sustained injuries as they had assaulted him. Now the investigation of the case is only in progress and

granting of pre-arrest bail at this stage will definitely hamper the smooth course of investigation of the case and hence, this application is opposed.

There is definite and clear accusation against this petitioner who is the second accused in the case. The defacto complainant and

his wife are from Assam and they are residing in a small shed and it is prima facie seen that this petitioner along with the other accused had

trespassed into that shed with the intention to outrage the modesty of his wife in the night. Hence, I find it difficult to believe the story narrated by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that he had gone to the place of occurrence in search of his mobile phone and identity card at 1.00 a.m in the night.

Whatever be it, the investigation of the case is only in preliminary stage and I do not find that custodial interrogation is not required in this case,

considering the gravity of accusation levelled against the accused. Danger of the petitioner absconding or fleeing, if released on bail, also cannot be

ruled out.

Hence, I find that granting of pre-arrest bail will definitely hamper the smooth course of investigation. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason

to think that this is a fit case in which pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner as sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.