Kerala High Court
Karthik vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 2ND ASWINA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.6581 OF 2019
CRIME NO.1293/2019 OF Karunaagapally Police Station , Kollam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
KARTHIK
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. K. VENUKUMAR, LAKSHMI VILASATHIL, MARU WEST,
ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT
KERALA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.
SRI.U.M.HASSAN
SMT.P.PARVATHY
SMT.SURYA P SHAJI
SHRI.MANAS P HAMEED
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 31.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No. 6581 of 2019
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
------------------------------------
B.A. No. 6581 of 2019
------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.1 in the instant Crime No.1293 of 2019 of Karunagappally Police station, which has been registered for the offences punishable under Secs. 451, 323, 354A, 354C, 506 and 34 of IPC and 119(b) of KP Act 2011, on the basis of F.I Statement given by the lady victim on 18.08.2019 at about 8.00 p.m, in respect of alleged incident, which had happened for the period from 01.10.2018 to 12.08.2019.
2. It is asserted by Sri.Saijo Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner that all the offences alleged against the accused persons, including the petitioner in the above crime both as per the IPC and the KP Act, 2011 are bailable offences. It is pointed out that the offences under Sec.119(b) of the KP Act 2011, is a bailable offence in view of the provisions contained in Sec.125 of the said KP Act.
3. The learned Prosecutor also confirms the correctness of the above said submission made by the petitioner. Since all the offences B.A. No. 6581 of 2019 3 alleged against the petitioner are bailable offences, the plea for the anticipatory bail, only when non-bailable offences are alleged, is rather redundant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will be advised to immediately approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned under Sec.436 of the Cr.PC and seek bail in this crime and that the said Court is obliged to grant bail as all the offences alleged against him are bailable offences. So it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law. However, Sri.Saijo Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the father of the lady defacto complainant is a retired Police Officer and that it is at his instance the above said false allegations have been made and that the petitioner reasonably apprehends that the Police out of extraneous consideration might illegally add some non-bailable offences against the petitioner in the instant FIR. This Court is not in a position to act upon such hypothetical situation since as of now all the offences alleged against the petitioner are bailable offences.
5. However, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that in case, the competent Police Officer concerned gets any objective materials to B.A. No. 6581 of 2019 4 subsequently add any non-bailable offences against the petitioner in the instant crime, then the said officer shall issue prior notice to the petitioner under Sec.41(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and then only will proceed with the matter in accordance with law and at that stage, it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law.
With these observations and directions, the above Application will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE KAS