Bail Applications Nos. 5142 of 2024 and 5134 of 2024, in Crime No. 601/2024, Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode, Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5134 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.601/2024 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: ``` ``` PRAJEESH P.A, AGED 42 YEARS S/O ASOKAN, BAGAVATHI PADANA, GOVINDAPURAM P.O.,PUTHIYAPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016 BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.SASITH SMT.R.K.CHIRUTHA SMT.NEELANJANA NAIR SMT.ANJANA SURESH.E SMT.REETHU JACOB SMT.NANMA.B.B SMT.RIYA KOCHUMMAN SMT.LIDHIYA GEORGE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ``` BY SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.07.2024, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.5142/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` B.A.Nos.5142 and 5134 of 2024 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 5142 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.601/2024 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`KOZHIKODE`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:`** ``` BAIJU V.T, AGED 36 YEARS S/O BAPPUTTY, KALLAPPADANNA HOUSE, GOVINDAPURAM P.O., PUTHIYAPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016 BY ADV SRI.M.R.SASITH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ``` BY SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.07.2024, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.5134/2024 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` B.A.Nos.5142 and 5134 of 2024 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`ORDER`** ## **Dated this the 31[st] day of July, 2024** The applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for orders of pre-arrest bail. 2. B.A No.5142 of 2024 is filed by the 1[st] accused and B.A No.5134 of 2024 was filed by the 2[nd] accused in Crime No.601 of 2024 of the Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode, which is registered against them for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 283, 323, 354, 354A(1)(i) and 354A(1)(iv) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that, on 26.5.2024, at around 22.30 hours, while the de facto complainant and her husband were travelling in a car, ``` 4 ``` ``` B.A.Nos.5142 and 5134 of 2024 ``` the 1[st] accused, who was riding a motorcycle, overtook the car and then stopped his motorcycle across the road and blocked the car. He quarrelled with the defacto complainant and her husband. An altercation took place and the 1[st] accused groped the breasts of the defacto complainant. Later, while the defacto complainant and her husband were standing near a friend’s house, the accused restrained the defacto complainant and assaulted him with hands and again molested the defacto complainant. Thus the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri.Sasith M R, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Seetha S, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the accusations levelled against them. The Investigating Officer has deliberately incorporated Section 354 of ``` B.A.Nos.5142 and 5134 of 2024 ``` ``` 5 ``` the IPC, to see that the petitioners are arrested and remanded to judicial custody. There is no materials to substantiate that an offence under Section 354 of the IPC can be attracted to the facts of the case. The petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. In fact, it was the defacto complainant’s husband had abused the accused. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter alia, contending that there are prima facie materials to substantiate the petitioners involvement in the crime. During the course of the investigation, it has been revealed that the 2[nd] accused has joined the 1[st] accused and assaulted the defacto complainant’s husband. The eye witnesses and wound certificates corroborate with the ``` 6 ``` ## **`B.A.Nos.5142 and 5134 of 2024`** involvement of the petitioners in the crime. If the petitioners are granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would certainly torpedo the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. The prosecution allegation against the petitioners is that, they wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and her husband and assaulted them and also outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant by groping her breasts. On a careful scrutiny of the materials on record, it is seen that the specific allegation of outraging the modesty of the defacto complainant is attributed against the 1[st] accused. The allegation against the 2[nd] accused is that he joined the 1[st] accused and had assaulted the defacto complainant and her husband. Therefore, I am of the firm view that only the 1[st] accused’s custodial interrogation is necessary for the proper and full investigation in the crime and the 2[nd] ``` B.A.Nos.5142 and 5134 of 2024 ``` ``` 7 ``` accused’s custodial interrogation is not necessary. 8. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, and particularly on going through the bail objection report filed by the Investigating Officer, I convinced that the 2[nd] accused has made out satisfying grounds to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. On the contrary, since a specific overt act is alleged against the 1[st] accused, who has allegedly outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant , I am not satisfied that the 1[st] accused has made out any valid ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. In the result: (1) B.A.No.5142/2024 filed by the 1[st] accused is dismissed. ``` 8 ``` ## **`B.A.Nos.5142 and 5134 of 2024`** - (2) B.A.No.5134/2024 filed by the 2[nd] accused is - allowed subject to the following conditions: - (i) The 2[nd] accused is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. - (ii) In the event of the arrest of the 2[nd] accused, the Investigating Officer shall release the 2[nd] accused on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each; - (iii) The 2[nd] accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. - (iv) The 2[nd] accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper ``` 9 ``` ## **`B.A.Nos.5142 and 5134 of 2024`** with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; - (v) The 2[nd] accused shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court concerned within a period of one week from the date of his release on bail. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the said court within the said period; - (vi) The 2[nd] accused shall not get involved in any other offence while he is on bail; - (vii) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. - (viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. - (ix) Needless to mention, it would be well within ``` 10 ``` ## **`B.A.Nos.5142 and 5134 of 2024`** the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the 2[nd] accused even while he is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) And another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. (x) The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of considering the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by competent Courts. Sd/- **C.S.DIAS** **JUDGE** NAB