Abhilash vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 11, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1439858

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1439858
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Mar 11, 2022
Case Number: Bail Appl./40/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abhilash

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....police station, thiruvananthapuram district, alleging commission of offences under sections 451, 354(a)(i)(iv), 323 and 379 of the indian penal code. the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner trespassed into the house of the de-facto complainant, molested her and took away an amount of rs.6,000/- and thereby he committed the offences alleged against him.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit thatthe allegations are absolutely false. it is submitted that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are neighbours and the de- facto complainant had abused the wife of the petitioner, who was pregnant and had also thrown stones at her owing to some previousdispute. it is submitted that the petitioner had only gone to the house of the de-facto complainant to question the same and had not committed any offence as alleged. it is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter. it is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and at any rate, his custodial interrogation is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of thecase.4. the learned public prosecutor points out that the investigation conducted thus far shows that the allegations against the petitioner are true. the learned public prosecutor submits that the investigating agency has collected cctv images, which substantially indicate that the allegations raised by the de-factocomplainant are true, atleast in part. it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail considering the fact that the de-facto complainant is a 70 year old woman.5. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,considering the nature of the allegations, i am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted bail taking note of the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that his custodial interrogation may not be necessary for a proper investigation into the matter.6. in.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRIME NO.2653 OF 2021 OF KATTAKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ABHILASH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. SOBHA, KUNNINPURAM, KUCHAPURAM, AMACHAL P.O., KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 572. BY ADV M.R.SARIN RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KATTAKADA POLICE STATION, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SMT. SEETHA. S. (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2653 of 2021 of

Kattakada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 451, 354(A)(i)(iv), 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner trespassed into the house of the de-facto complainant, molested her and took away an amount of Rs.6,000/- and thereby he committed the offences alleged against him.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the allegations are absolutely false. It is submitted that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are neighbours and the de- facto complainant had abused the wife of the petitioner, who was pregnant and had also thrown stones at her owing to some previous

dispute. It is submitted that the petitioner had only gone to the house of the de-facto complainant to question the same and had not committed any offence as alleged. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and at any rate, his custodial interrogation is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the investigation conducted thus far shows that the allegations against the petitioner are true. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigating agency has collected CCTV images, which substantially indicate that the allegations raised by the de-facto

complainant are true, atleast in part. It is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail considering the fact that the de-facto complainant is a 70 year old woman.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

considering the nature of the allegations, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted bail taking note of the fact that no criminal antecedents are reported against the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that his custodial interrogation may not be necessary for a proper investigation into the matter.

6. In the result, this application is allowed and it is directed

that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.2653 of 2021 of Kattakada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court;

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating

officer in Crime No.2653 of 2021 of Kattakada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District at 10.00AM on 18.03.2022 and 19.03.2022 and thereafter, whenever called upon to do so;

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the

investigation or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant or any witness in Crime No.2653 of 2021 of Kattakada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District;

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.2653 of 2021 of Kattakada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Abhilash vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.