Nishad vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Apr 30, 2021

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1627674

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/1627674
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Apr 30, 2021
Case Number: Bail Appl./3062/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nishad

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the learned public prosecutor opposed the bail application. he contended that the alleged -:3:- incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the petitioner and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would affect the course of investigation.6. the law with regard to the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail is well settled. pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. the power u/s 438 of cr.p.c could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation made against the petitioner is well founded. the allegations made against him is very serious in nature and it prima facie show a premeditated criminal act on his part. the investigation is in a preliminary stage. the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of investigation. as rightly argued by the learned public prosecutor, the possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. the victim is a deaf and dumb lady. hence, considering the gravity of the offence and stage of investigation, i feel that it is not a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this court u/s 438 of cr.p.c. could be invoked. the application is only to be-:4:- dismissed. in the result, the bail application is dismissed. sd/- dr. kauser edappagath rp true copy judge ps to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 10TH VAISAKHA, 1943 Bail Appl..No.3062 OF 2021 CRIME NO.147/2021 OF Kottiyam Police Station , Kollam PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: NISHAD AGED 37 YEARS SHEEJA MANDIRAM, KANNANALLOOR , KOLLAM 691576 BY ADV. SRI.R.KISHORE (KALLUMTHAZHAM) RESPONDENTS/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER AGED 35 YEARS KANNANALLOOR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.DHANIL THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-04-2021, THE COURT ON 30-04-2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: -:2:-

O R D E R

Dated this the 30th day of April, 2021 This is an application filed u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the accused No.1 in Crime No.147/2021 of Kottiyam Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections 451, 354 & 354A(i) & (ii) r/w 34 of IPC.

3. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner

trespassed into the residence of the victim, a deaf and dumb lady aged 19 years only, and sexually assaulted her by catching hold on her breast and kissing her and thereby committed the offence.

4. Heard both sides and perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the petitioner is absolutely innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and hence he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He contended that the alleged -:3:- incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the petitioner and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would affect the course of investigation.

6. The law with regard to the grant or refusal of pre-

arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power u/s 438 of Cr.P.C could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation made against the petitioner is well founded. The allegations made against him is very serious in nature and it prima facie show a premeditated criminal act on his part. The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of investigation. As rightly argued by the learned Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. The victim is a deaf and dumb lady. Hence, considering the gravity of the offence and stage of investigation, I feel that it is not a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. could be invoked. The application is only to be

-:4:- dismissed. In the result, the bail application is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH Rp True Copy JUDGE PS to Judge

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2021 Same Parties Nishad vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath