High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-05-13Regular bail granted to the petitioner with str...

Junaid V.T. vs State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BA No. 3513 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Badharudeen, J.
Judgment Date: 2022-05-13
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted regular bail on the following conditions: (i) bond of Rs. 30,000 with two solvent sureties; (ii) compliance with COVID-19 restrictions; (iii) no intimidation of witnesses or tampering with evidence; (iv) cooperation with investigation and availability for trial; (v) appearance before the Investigating Officer when directed; (vi) no direct/indirect inducement to witnesses; (vii) no involvement in other offences during the bail period; (viii) no disturbance to the defacto complainant and no entry into Kanayannur Taluk; (ix) no posting about the complainant on social media; (x) violation of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Final Disposition: Regular bail granted to the petitioner with stringent conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Junaid V.T.

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
ADDL.R2 Sreeja Mannangath

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P.A.MUJEEB Thomas
• RESHMA R. DONEESHYA KITHU
• C.V. ROSHNI MANUEL
• JAYARAMAN S.
• ABISHEK JOHNY
• NIRMAL CHERIYAN VARGHESE

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI THOMAS J. ANAKKALLUNKAL- ADDL R2
• SRI M.C.ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Case Synopsis & Summary

Junaid V.T., the sole accused in Crime No. 385/2022 of Kalamassery Police Station, moves for regular bail before the Kerala High Court. The prosecution alleges that from 2021 onward he stalked the defacto complainant online and, on 21 January 2022, entered her car and attempted to disrobe her with the intention to outrage her modesty, constituting offences under Sections 354, 354A(1)(i), and 354D of the IPC. The petitioner contends innocence, arguing that the allegations are false and that even accepting the prosecution case, the circumstances do not justify continued detention, given he has already spent about 47 days in custody. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, noting that the petitioner previously committed a similar offence (Crime No. 791/2021) at Elamakkara Police Station and is under investigation, which underscores concern for public safety. The defacto complainant’s counsel asserts that the accused has been following and harassing the complainant, disrupting her mobility within Ernakulam district and causing fear. The court, after considering the case diary and prima facie material, acknowledges the seriousness but finds that the prolonged custody warrants a bail grant with stringent protections. The order imposes bonds of Rs. 30,000 with two solvent sureties, COVID-19 compliance, no witness intimidation or tampering, continued cooperation with investigation, and geographic and social-media restrictions. The court issued the bail on 13 May 2022 under appropriate conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 354 IPCSection 354A(1)(i) IPCSection 354D IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant’s counsel submitted that the accused is innocent and the allegations are false. He argued that even if the case is taken as true, the gravity of the offence does not merit continued detention, particularly since the petitioner has already spent about 47 days in custody. Therefore, regular bail with stringent conditions should be granted to ensure cooperation with the investigation and protection of the complainant while preserving the petitioner’s liberty.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing a prior similar offence (Crime No. 791/2021) and ongoing investigation to argue that custodial custody remains necessary for the investigation and for public safety. The defacto complainant’s counsel contended that the accused has stalked and harassed the complainant, affecting her daily life and travel within Ernakulam district, warranting protective measures. The court’s task was to balance the seriousness of the allegations with the need to protect the petitioner’s liberty and the complainant’s safety until trial.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Junaid V.T. vs State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN FRIDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MAY 2022 / 23RD VAISAKHA, 1944** **BAIL APPL. NO. 3513 OF 2022** **CRIME NO.385/2022 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION,** ## **ERNAKULAM DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED :** **1 JUNAID .V.T., AGED 26 YEARS S/O RESEELA, VP HOUSE, CHALIN, TEMPLE GATE, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670101. NOW RESIDING AT A RENTED HOUSE OF SERABI, NEAR MUSILM CHURCH, MUCHAKKAL ROAD, MAHI, PIN - 673310** **BY ADVS. P.A.MUJEEB Thomas RESHMA R. DONEESHYA KITHU C.V. ROSHNI MANUEL JAYARAMAN S. ABISHEK JOHNY NIRMAL CHERIYAN VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682031 2 *ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED SREEJA MANNANGATH, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O SREEDHARAN, HOUSE NO.1538/A1, SRREEBHAVAN SANSKRITHI GARDEN, OPP CHOICE PARK, POTTAKUZHY,** B.A.No.3513 of 2022 ..2.. **ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682026 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13/05/2022 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2022.** **BY SRI THOMAS J. ANAKKALLUNKAL- ADDL R2 SRI M.C.ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A.No.3513 of 2022 ..3.. ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, J.** **-----------------------------------------------------------B.A.No.3513 of 2022** **-----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 13[th] day of May, 2022** ## **O R D E R** This is an application for regular bail filed by the sole accused in Crime No.385 of 2022 of Kalamassery Police Station. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and Adv.Sri.Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, who appeared for the defacto complainant to oppose the bail. 3. The prosecution allegation is that the accused herein followed the defacto complainant through online from 2021 onwards and in continuation of the same on 21.01.2022, he entered into the car of the defacto B.A.No.3513 of 2022 ..4.. complainant and he attempted to disrobe her with intention to outrage her modesty and thereby, the prosecution alleges commission of offences under Sections 354, 354(A)(1)(i), 354D of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and the allegation is false. According to him, even as per the prosecution case, no serious allegation could be gathered to detain the petitioner in custody further, who is in custody for the last 47 days. Therefore, he pressed for regular bail. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed bail highlighting the fact that the petitioner earlier also committed offences in similar nature and for which, Crime No.791 of 2021 of Elamakkara Police Station was registered and is under investigation. 6. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the defacto complainant has no relation with B.A.No.3513 of 2022 ..5.. the accused and without any justification, he has been following the defacto complainant, and as a result of the same, now the defacto complainant is not in a position even to go for job and peacefully travel within the limit of Ernakulam District, apprehending disturbance at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he also opposed bail. 7. Going by the case diary, it could be seen that the prosecution allegations, prima facie, made out. Registration of crime under Section 354 IPC earlier also could be gathered from the case diary. Thus, it appears that the apprehension expressed by the defacto complainant in the matter of disturbance further is also having force. That apart, the attitude of the petitioner in disturbing the defacto complainant continuously is also noted with anxiety and displeasure. 8. However, having considered the nature of allegations at par with his custody of 47 days, I am inclined B.A.No.3513 of 2022 ..6.. to release the petitioner on bail imposing stringent conditions. In the result, this petition is allowed on the following conditions:- i. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) each with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate court concerned. ii. The petitioner shall co-operate with COVID-19 restrictions. iii. The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. He shall co-operate with the investigation and shall be available for trial. iv. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. v. The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. B.A.No.3513 of 2022 ..7.. vi. The petitioner shall not involve in any other offence during the currency of bail and any such event, if reported to came to the notice of this Court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. vii. It is specifically directed that the petitioner shall not disturb the defacto complainant in any manner and any such occurrence, if reported or came to the notice of this Court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail to the petitioner. viii. It is specifically directed further that the petitioner shall not enter within the limit of Kanayannur Taluk and shall be outside the said Taulk during the currency of bail. ix. He also shall not post anything in the social media in relation to the defacto complainant, in any manner. x. It is specifically ordered that violation of conditions herein above shall warrant cancellation of bail hereby granted. Sd/- ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE** rkj B.A.No.3513 of 2022 ..8.. ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3513/2022** **PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.04.2022 IN CM.P.NO.952/2022 OF HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT AT KALAMASSERY**