Kerala High Court
Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 8 December, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 8396 of 2016
---------------------------
CRIME NO. 3115/2016 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
---------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
---------------------
AJAYAN,
AGED 36 YEARS, MYLAMMOOTTIL HOUSE,
KOTTATHODU COLONY, IRUVALLIPRA,
KUTTAPPUZHA, THIRUVALLA.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THIRUVALLA- 689 101.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.N.MAYA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
PJ
A.M.BABU, J.
..........................................
B.A.NO.8396 OF 2016
...........................................
Dated 8th day of December, 2016
ORDER
Petitioner seeks bail under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C apprehending his arrest in Crime No.3115/2016 of the Thiruvalla Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are those punishable under Secs.294, 323, 354, 452 and 506 of the IPC.
2. The prosecution case as shown in column No.12 of the FIR is that the petitioner, with an intention to sexually harass the de facto complainant, trespassed into her house, pressed her neck and wanted her to submit to himself for sexual relationship. It is also alleged that he used to abuse her with filthy words.
3. The version of the petitioner is that he was in love with the de facto complainant who is a married woman. He alleges that she filed a complaint only when her husband came to know about the said relationship. The petitioner has produced call details to prove the frequent contacts over mobile phone between himself and the de facto complainant.
2 B.A.NO.8396 OF 2016
4. I have gone through the case diary. There is at least one statement under Sec.161 of the Cr.P.C which is in agreement with the version of the petitioner. Having perused the case diary and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the opinion that bail under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C can be granted in this case. In order to come to such a conclusion I have also considered the call details produced by the petitioner. It does not appear to me that detention of the petitioner is necessary for an effective in investigation of the case.
5. For the above reasons, I allow the application. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with Crime No.3115/2016, he shall be released on bail after interrogation on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum each. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. He shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer. This particular condition shall be in force for a period of two months or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. The petitioner shall not intimidate or try to influence witnesses; nor shall he destroy 3 B.A.NO.8396 OF 2016 evidence or tamper with it. The learned Magistrate having jurisdiction is hereby empowered to cancel the bail in the event of breach of any of the above conditions.
A.M.BABU Judge sks/8.12.2016