Dileep V v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5837 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.100/2024 OF VANITHA POLICE STATION, KASARGODE, ``` ## **`Kasargod`** ## **`---------------`** ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-`** ``` DILEEP V, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.V.PADMAVATHI AMMA, RESIDING AT KANIYADUKKAM HOUSE, CHATTANCHAL, THEKKIL, VTC THEKKIL KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671 541 ``` ``` BY ADVS. RESHMA E. ATHIRA V.M. ATHEENA ANTONY ANJITHA SANTHOSH ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :-`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER (CRIME NO.100 OF 2024 OF VANITHA POLICE STATION) KASARAGOD DISTRICT-, PIN - 671 121`** - **`3 XXX XXXX`** ``` BY SMT.NEEMA T.V., SR.PP ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 26.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5837 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 2 :- ``` ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 26th day of July, 2024** The application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.100/2024 of the Vanitha Police Station, Kasargode, which is registered against him, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that; on 26.05.2024, at around 17:00 hrs., the accused had abused the de facto complainant and slapped her because she had deleted the personal folder created by him on his computer. Thereafter, the accused molested the victim by tearing her dress. Thus, the accused has outraged the modesty of the de facto complainant. ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5837 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 3 :- ``` 4. Heard; Smt.Reshma E., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The petitioner and the de facto complainant were maintaining a friendship for a considerable period of time. It is only because the de facto complainant had deleted the petitioner's personal folder on his computer that he got agitated. The petitioner has not molested the victim as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen without any criminal antecedents. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would show that the Investigating Officer had initially not incorporated Section 354 of the IPC, which by itself proves the falsity in the crime. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the petitioner may be granted an order of pre-arrest bail. ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5837 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 4 :- ``` 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that if the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it may hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. On an evaluation of Annexure A1 FIR, it can be seen that the Investigating Officer had initially incorporated Sections 341 and 323 of the IPC. Subsequently, Section 354 of the IPC has been incorporated on the allegation that the petitioner had molested the de facto complainant by tearing her dress. It is on record that it is the de facto complainant who deleted the personal folder of the petitioner from his computer. Whether the offence under Section 354 of the IPC will be attracted or not is a matter to be investigated and ultimately decided at the time of trial. 8. In **Bhadres Bipinbhai Sheth** v. **State of Gujarat and another** [2015 KHC 4579] the Hon'ble ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5837 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 5 :- ``` Supreme Court has succinctly culled out the principles to grant orders of pre-arrest bail. It is laid down that Courts should be careful and meticulous in evaluating the facts of each case before granting an order of pre-arrest bail. The court should consider whether arresting of an accused would lead to ignominy, humiliation and disgrace to the accused and their family and also if there is any frivolity in the complaint registered against the accused. 9. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that initially the offence under Section 354 of the IPC was not incorporated, that the petitioner and the de facto complainant were maintaining a long time friendship and it was the de facto complainant who deleted the personal folder of the petitioner from his computer, I am of the firm view that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary. Hence, I am convinced that the petitioner has ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5837 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 6 :- ``` made out valid grounds to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail, but subject to the condition that the petitioner co-operates with the Investigating Officer. In the result, the application is allowed, subject to the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. - (ii) In the event of the petitioner's arrest, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioner 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 petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer, ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5837 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 7 :- ``` including to appear for medical examination, if required. - (iv) The petitioner 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 with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; - (v) The petitioner 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 petitioner 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 ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5837 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 8 :- ``` 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 the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner 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** Jvt/26.7.2024 ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 5837 OF 2024 ``` ``` -: 9 :- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5837/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES :-`** ``` Annexure A1A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 27.05.2024 IN CRIME NO. 100 OF 2024 OF VANITHA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, ``` ``` Annexure A2A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2024 IN CRL.M.C NO. 599 OF 2024 OF THE COURT OF SESSION, KASARAGOD DIVISION ```