Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 3735 OF 2023 (Crime No.247/2023 of Medical College Police Station, Thrissur) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: FIROZ AGED 43 YEARS S/O MOIDEEN, VENGADAN HOUR, MUTHIRAMANNA THAZEKODE, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322 BY ADVS. P.M.BINDHUMOL PAUL PAULSON T. RESPONDENT/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MEDICAL COLLAGE POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680581 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MEDICAL COLLAGE POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680581 OTHER PRESENT: ADV SEETHA S -SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.247/2023 of
Medical College Police Station, Thrissur. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 354A(1)(i), 354A(1)(ii), 354A(1)(iii) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that: On 18.03.2023 at about
23.50 hours, when the defacto complainant, who was doing house surgency in Thrissur Medical College, came to the House Surgency Quarters Canteen for taking water, the accused had sexually harassed her by holding her hands. Similarly on 26.03.2023, the accused had talked to the victim with sexually coloured remarks and showed a sexually explicit image of animals on the mobile phone. The crime was registered in such circumstances, and this application for anticipatory bail is submitted by the petitioner as
he apprehends arrest in connection with the investigation of the said case.
4. Heard, Smt.P.M.Bindhumol, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha.S., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was implicated in a false case. The petitioner has not committed any acts which would constitute the offences alleged against him. The learned counsel also places reliance upon the Annexure A1 complaint submitted by the defacto complainant
before the Superintendent of Government Medical College, wherein, the allegation that the petitioner caught hold of the hand of the defacto complainant was not mentioned. By relying on the said document, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the entire case is a cooked up story. The petitioner is prepared to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and shall cooperate with the investigation, contends the learned counsel.
6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would
oppose the aforesaid application. It is pointed out that, in Annexure A1, the complaint submitted by the defacto complainant was only concerning the incident that occurred on 26.03.2023 and whereas the incidents in which the petitioner allegedly caught hold of the hands of the defacto complainant occurred on 18.03.2023. However, while giving the FI Statement, the defacto complainant
mentioned both incidents and therefore the offences were incorporated in the FIR based on such statement. It is further pointed out that the matter is under investigation and hence release of the petitioner may hamper the prospects of investigation.
7. I have gone through the records and heard the
contentions raised from both sides. It is true that there are allegations against the petitioner. The only non-bailable offence is under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code, which is mainly on the allegation that the petitioner caught hold of the hand of the defacto complainant. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the first complaint submitted
before the Police (Annexure A1), the said incident is not mentioned. Even though there is an explanation forthcoming from the part of the prosecution as to the non mentioning of the aforesaid aspect, I am of the view that it is a matter to be investigated. But the fact that the said incident is not mentioned in the first complaint has to be taken as an aspect which goes in favour of the petitioner for the limited purpose of considering the question as to whether bail is to be granted or not.
In such circumstances, I am of the view that the purpose of investigation would be served, if the cooperation of the petitioner with the investigation is ensured. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any necessity for custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with the following directions; i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer, within a period of 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. vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar 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 court 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 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3735/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27-3- 2023 FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27-3-2023 GIVEN BY THE SUPERINTENDENT TO THE SHO, MEDICAL COLLAGE POLICE STATION Annexure A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-04- 2023 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 481/2023 ON THE FILES OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR