Kerala High Court
Anil Kumar K vs The State Of Kerala on 23 June, 2016
Author: P.Ubaid
Bench: P.Ubaid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/2ND ASHADHA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 4619 of 2016
----------------------------------------
CRIME NO. 861/2016 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
------------------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 2 :
------------------------------------------------------------
1. ANIL KUMAR K, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O. GOPALAN, OCEAN GEMS AND PEARLS, OPP: STYLE PLUS,
KESTON ROAD, KOWDIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2. SHAMLA PAUL, AGED 36 YEARS,
W/O. PAUL JOSEPH, 43/A, ARAMBANKUDIYIL HOUSE,
KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT :
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 001.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. T.Y.LALIZA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Msd.
P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
B.A No.4619 of 2016
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 23rd June, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioners herein are the two accused in Crime No.861 of 2016 of the Museum Police Station registered under Sections 354, 451, 323,324 and 506 (ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They seek pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The prosecution case is that at about 09.30 p.m on 06.06.2016, these petitioners herein assaulted the de facto complainant at her house in connection with some other dispute concerning her husband who is an employee of the 2nd petitioner herein.
3. On a perusal of the case diary including the complaint, I find that the allegation in the complaint is prominently that she was assaulted by these petitioners. There is absolutely nothing to show that the said assault was made by the 1st petitioner with any sexual intent. It appears that the alleged incident happened during some exchange of words between them concerning the de facto B.A No.4619 of 2016 2 complainant's husband. The second petitioner herein also allegedly assaulted the victim. The allegation as against her is only under Section 324 and 506 I.P.C. In the nature of the allegations, and the materials required for a prosecution on the given allegations, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary, and that even without such interrogation, the required materials can be collected by the Investigating Officer. I do not find the necessity of detention of the petitioners in custody for the purpose of investigation in the above circumstances. It will suffice that the petitioners are directed to report before the investigating officer periodically. However, some other conditions are also felt necessary for bail.
4. In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing bond with two solvent sureties for 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No.861 of 2016 of the Museum Police Station. Bail is B.A No.4619 of 2016 3 granted on condition that a. The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Tuesdays for a period of two months.
b. The petitioners shall not leave the limits of the Museum Police Station for a period of two months.
c. The petitioners shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or they shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise Sd/-
P.UBAID JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge