Sathyan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2014

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sathyan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2014

Bench: V.K.Mohanan

       

  

   

 
 
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                   PRESENT:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

                 MONDAY,THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/3RD BHADRA, 1936

                                          Bail Appl..No. 6259 of 2014
                                           -------------------------------

    CRIME NO. 1635/2014 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA DISTRICT.
                                                         ...

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------

            SATHYAN NAIR, AGED 46 YEARS,
            S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI, R/AT NJONGANAM VILAYIL,
            CHOORAKODU.P.O, CHOORAKODU, ADOOR TALUK,
            PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

            BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------------------

        1. STATE OF KERALA,
            REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

        2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
            ADOOR POLICE STATION, ADOOR - 689 320.

            BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.JAYAKUMAR

            THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
            ON 25-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
            FOLLOWING:


MBR/



                   V.K.MOHANAN, J.
                -------------------------------
                  B.A.No.6259 of 2014
                -------------------------------
        Dated this the 25th day of August, 2014.


                        O R D E R

This is an application filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail since the petitioner apprehend arrest connected with Crime No.1635/14 of Adoor Police Station.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 22.7.2014 at about 2 p.m., the accused trespassed into the shop conducted by the de facto complainant and caught hold of her hand as a result of which, the blouse worn by the de facto complainant was torn and the intention of the accused was to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant. So, according to the prosecution, the petitioner/accused has committed the offence punishable under sections 354 and 451 of IPC.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and B.A.No.6259 of 2014 2 the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the petitioner for purchasing goods for her shop and when the said amount was demanded back, the de facto complainant filed a false case against the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner after having trespassed into the shop room of the victim, under the pretext to talk with her, with the intention to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant, who is a lady aged 38, caught hold of her hand.

5. I have also heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and the allegation raised against the petitioner, according to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary and therefore this B.A.No.6259 of 2014 3 petition can be allowed as prayed for, however subject to strict conditions.

In the result, this petition is allowed and there will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioner connected with Crime No.1635/14 of Adoor Police Station, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the above crime and on the following other conditions :

1. The petitioner is directed to report before the Investigating Officer in the above Crime between 10 and 11 a.m. on Sundays once in a fortnight.

2. The petitioner is directed to surrender his Passport before the Investigating Officer at the time of execution of bond and if he is not having the Passport, file an affidavit to that effect and the Investigating Officer is directed to produce the Passport, if he is having the same, or the affidavit as afore mentioned, as the case may be, before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner is free to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for the release of the Passport as and when required and in case of an application is filed in this regard, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the same on merit and pass appropriate orders, guided by the decision rendered by this Court in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 712).

B.A.No.6259 of 2014 4

3. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and he shall not interfere with the same or attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper the evidence.

Sd/-

V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.

ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court