Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2814 OF 2024 CRIME NO.158/2024 OF Nenmara Police Station, Palakkad PETITIONER/S: 1 DEVAN @ SAHADEVAN, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN, VAKKAVU,NENMARA, CHITTUR, 2 DWARA @ SWAMINATHAN, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN, VAKKAVU, NENMARA,CHITTUR, 3 SUNITHA, AGED 38 YEARS W/O.SAHADEVAN, VAKKAVU, NENMARA,CHITTUR, 4 KAMLAM, AGED 50 YEARS W/O.CHANDRAN, VAKKAVU, NENMARA,CHITTUR, BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: pp maya m.n. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-
ORDER
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024 Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.158 of 2024 of Nenmara Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) and 354 r/w Section 34 of
IPC. The crime is registered on the allegation that, on 10.03.2024 at about 21 hours, the accused attacked the de facto complainant's
husband due to their rivalry in connection with a civil dispute. Seeing her husband being attacked, the de facto complainant intervened and thereupon, assaulted and molested by the first accused.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners
contended that the offence under Section 354, which is the only non-bailable offence, has been incorporated with the sole intention of
-3- preventing the petitioners from being enlarged on bail. According to the Counsel, it is impossible to believe that the accused, with the intention of outraging the modesty of the de facto complainant, would have done the alleged acts in broad day light and in pubic view. Finally, it is contended that the false complaint is lodged to harass the petitioners because of the civil dispute pending between them and the husband of the de facto complainant.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegation which led to the incorporation of the offence under Section 354 are serious. The question as to whether Section 354 is attracted or not, will be revealed only from the investigation to be conducted. At the same time, there being a civil dispute between the parties and the de facto complainant's husband, the contention that the petitioners had not done -4- anything to outrage the modesty of the de facto
complainant, cannot be brushed aside. In such circumstance, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not warranted. Hence, the bail application is allowed with the following
directions;
(i) Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer within two weeks.
(ii) The investigating officer shall interrogate the petitioners and in the event of the petitioners' arrest, they shall be released on bail, on the petitioners executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.
(iii) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation.
(iv) Petitioners shall not get involved
in any similar offence during the pendency of the -5- bail and shall not, in any manner, try to influence the witnesses or intimidate them. If any one of the above condition is violated, the investigating officer will be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail. Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/