Kerala High Court
Kuttikrishnan Nambiar. M.N vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2014
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/18TH MAGHA, 1935
Bail Appl..No. 581 of 2014 ()
------------------------------
CRIME NO. 24/2014 OF KUMBALA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
.......
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
------------------------------------------
KUTTIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR. M.N.,
S/O.LATE KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, AGED 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT,
RESIDING AT NAMBADIPALLAM,
THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT-STATE:
--------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
K. Ramakrishnan, J.
==============================
B.A.No.581 of 2014
==============================
Dated this, the 07th day of February, 2014.
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the 2nd accused in Crime No.24/2014 of Kumbala Police Station under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 04.01.2014 at about 5.00 p.m the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention of causing humiliation to the de facto complainant from the GSBS School ground near the stage erected in connection with the District Level School Festival in GSBS school ground and at the instigation of the present accused another lady pulled the saree of the de facto complainant and both of them abused her and caused annoyance to her and thereby they have committed the offence punishable under Sections. 354, 294(b) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he is innocent of the same. Even his name was not mentioned in the First Information Report. Since he being the convener of the B.A.No.581 of 2014 : 2 : function, later he has been falsely implicated in the case. He is prepared to co-operate with the investigation of the case.
4. On the other hand, the application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the investigation of the case is not over and first accused is yet to be identified for which the custody of the petitioner is required.
5. Heard both sides and perused the case diary file produced.
6. It is seen from the records that the above case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the de facto complainant against an identifiable one lady and another person alleging offences under Sections. 354, 294(b) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is seen from the case diary file that later the other person involved in the incident was identified as the present petitioner and he was shown as 2nd accused in the case. It is also seen from the records that the present petitioner is the convener of the function conducted in that place. It is also seen from the records that though the incident happened on 04.01.2014, the same was reported to the police only on 11.01.2014. I am not, at this stage, going into the question as to whether the delay is fatal or not as it is B.A.No.581 of 2014 : 3 : a matter to be considered by the trial court on the basis of evidence. It is true that offence against women are now a days increasing and that was the reason why the offence under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code which was earlier bailable has been made non-bailable by the legislature. However, I am not at this stage of going to the question as to whether the allegations are genuine or sufficient to attract any of the offences alleged in the case. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in connection with the investigation. However, for the purpose of identifying the other person alleged to have been involved in a crime, if his presence is required, directing him to appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation and co-operate with the interrogation will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice. The petitioner is a teacher as well.
7. Considering the circumstances, I feel that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner with some conditions. So the application is allowed to the following conditions:
1. The respondent is directed to release the petitioner in the event of his arrest in connection with the above crime on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two B.A.No.581 of 2014 : 4 : solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/respondent/investigating officer as the case may be.
2. That the petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation and also for the purpose of identification by witnesses for 2 consecutive days between 9.00 a.m and 12.00 noon preferably on Saturday and Sunday immediately after the arrest and release of the petitioner and thereafter appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him for that purpose in writing to do so till the final report is filed.
3. The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
4. The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without getting prior permission from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karasgod till the disposal of the case.
5 If the petitioner surrenders before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kasargod and moves for regular bail then the learned magistrate is directed to release the petitioner on bail on the same conditions as stated above.
With the above conditions, the application is allowed.
Sd/-
K.Ramakrishnan, Judge.
Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge