Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 13TH POUSHA, 1944 CRIME NO.1561/2022 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD
PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS.1, 3 AND 4 : 1 ANU, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O ASHOKAN, AVANTHIKA, HOSDURG, KADAPPURAM P.O., KANHANGAD, 2 SUJITH P.P., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O LATE GOVINDAN, ACHU NIVAS, KADAPPURAM P.O., KANHANGAD, 3 MANU P.V., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O MOHANAN P.V., NEAR HEALTH CENTRE, KANHANGAD P.O., KANHANGAD, BY ADVS. THOMAS T.VARGHESE PHILIP T.VARGHESE ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM V.T.LITHA K.R.MONISHA RESPONDENT/ STATE & INVESTIGATING OFFICER : 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, HOSDURG, KASARGODE, PIN - 671 315 BY SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------- B.A. No.10266 of 2022 --------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2023
ORDER
This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 in Crime No.1561/2022 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod, alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 451, 323, 354, 427 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. According to the prosecution, on 28.11.2022, the accused
trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and assaulted her and her grand-daughter and after entering into the bedroom of the daughter-in-law of the defacto complainant while she was breastfeeding her child, tore her night dress and thereby committed the offences alleged.
4. Sri.Philip T Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that the offence under Section 354 IPC has been falsely included only for the purpose of denying the liberty of the petitioners. It was further submitted that the petitioners are willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed.
5. Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that the allegations are serious requiring custodial interrogation.
6. I have considered the rival contentions. Having regard to the
nature of allegations, though I am of the view that the offences are serious, custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not essential. However limited custody would suffice the investigation.
7. Accordingly, I allow this application on the following conditions :-
(a) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 10.01.2023 and shall subject themselves to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to
arrest the petitioners, then, they shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.
(d) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence or contact the defacto complainant or her family members.
(e) Petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while they
are on bail. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM