Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 1010 OF 2023 PETITIONER/ACCUSED: PRADEEP KUMAR V.L AGED 47 YEARS S/O. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, RADHAS, MAYIPADI, SHIRIBAGILU, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671124 BY ADVS. I.V.PRAMOD SAIRA SOURAJ P. RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV M P PRASHANTH - PP ADV C S HRITHWIK - SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 80/2023 of Mananthavady Police Station. The aforesaid crime was registered under Sections 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 25.01.2023, the petitioner stamped on the foot of the informant and pushed her on her breast in front of the others while she was
sitting in a document writer's office at Mananthavady. The crime was registered based on a complaint submitted by the defacto complainant, and this application is submitted by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail.
4. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is innocent of all the allegations and is
being falsely implicated in the said case. It is further contended that he is prepared to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and is also ready to cooperate with the investigation.
5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the aforesaid application. It is pointed out that the petitioner is a civil Police Officer. Earlier, he was suspended from service on account of his involvement in two other crimes. While he was under suspension, he got acquainted with the defacto complainant, who along with her husband was conducting a tourist
resort at Mananthavady. The petitioner was granted some employment in the said establishment. However, it is alleged that later the defacto complainant and her husband noticed certain malpractices committed by the petitioner, and thereupon he was removed from the said employment. It is alleged that the aforesaid atrocities were committed as a retaliation of the same, while the defacto complainant and her husband were sitting in a document writer's office at Mananthavady.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the petitioner has criminal antecedents as he was involved in Crime No.
the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and also Crime No.292/2017 of the Kasaragode Police Station under Sections 354, 506(i) and 406 of Indian Penal Code.
7. In response to the contention above, the learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that, as far as the previous crimes registered against the petitioner are concerned, there were counter- cases registered regarding the same against the victims in the said case as well. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has also sustained injuries therein. It is further pointed out that the aforesaid case has nothing to do with the crime, which is the subject matter of this case.
8. I have gone through the records and the contentions raised from both sides. On going through the records, it is
discernible that the victim sustained no serious injuries. The materials available on record indicate some disputes between the parties. Even though the only non-bailable offence alleged is under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, from the nature of the allegations raised against the petitioner, it appears that the same occurred during the course of a scuffle. No sexual intention could be found from the materials placed on records. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be not necessary. In such circumstances, taking note of the gravity of the offences and the nature of the allegations, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the cooperation of the petitioner with the investigation is ensured. For the said purpose, the petitioner has to surrender before the Police. In such circumstances, this application is disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit it before the investigation officer within a period of two weeks from today.
In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:- i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer, within two weeks from today, for subjecting himself to interrogation. ii) After interrogation, the petitioner shall be released on bail on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioner executing a bond for Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer iii) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded.
iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Saturday until the filing of the final report. v) The petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him. vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of like nature while on bail. vii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any
of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation. viii) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the Jurisdictional Court. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Magistrate shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE rpk