Reji v. State of Kerala

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4067 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.248/2024 OF UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI ``` ## **`PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:`** ``` REJI , AGED 50 YEARS S/O MATHEW, MATHAIPARAYIL HOUSE, MATTUKATTA KARA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685507 BY ADVS. C.S.MANILAL S.NIDHEESH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` - **`2 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX`** ``` BY SMT NEEMA T V SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 01.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.4067 of 2024 -:2:- ## Dated this the 1[st] day of August, 2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(‘Code’, for the sake of brevity), for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.248/2024 of the Upputhura Police Station, Idukki, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 354(B), 323 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that: on 27.04.2024, at around 10:00 hours, when the defacto complainant was engaged in thozhilurappu works in the property of one Antony, the accused, with an intention to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant, groped her breasts, slapped her on both sides of her head, and hit on her back with his knee. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. B.A.No.4067 of 2024 -:3:- 4. Heard; Sri.C.S.Manilal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema. T.V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The defacto complainant has deliberately got the case registered against the petitioner to wreak vengeance on the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner and the defacto complainant are colleagues. It is only because the petitioner asked the defacto complainant to take away the rubber sticks from the property, she got infuriated and abused the petitioner in obscene language. Subsequently, an altercation took place, which led the defacto complainant to register the present crime. The petitioner hails from a respectable family, and he does not have any criminal antecedents. He is the sole breadwinner of his family. In any given case, the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected. Therefore, B.A.No.4067 of 2024 -:4:- the petitioner is 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 incriminating materials to substantiate the petitioner's involvement in the crime. The petitioner had attempted to attack the defacto complainant with a shovel. The petitioner had outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant by groping her breasts. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would certainly hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. The allegation against the petitioner is that, he abused the defacto complainant in obscene language and, thereafter, outraged her modesty by groping her breasts. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be seen that the petitioner and defacto complainant are colleagues. It was when the petitioner requested the defacto complainant to B.A.No.4067 of 2024 -:5:- remove some rubber sticks an altercation took place, and the petitioner allegedly attacked the defacto complainant. 8. In **Bhadres Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another** [2015 KHC 4579] the Hon'ble 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 prearrest 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 finding that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are colleagues and the altercation took place when the B.A.No.4067 of 2024 -:6:- petitioner requested the defacto complainant to take away some rubber sticks, that the FIR was registered on the following day after the incident, I am prima facie satisfied that there is some frivolity in the allegation. However, that is a matter to be investigated and decided after trial. Therefore, I am convinced that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary. Consequently, I am convinced that the petitioner has made out valid grounds to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail, but subject to the condition that the petitioner cooperates 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. B.A.No.4067 of 2024 -:7:- - (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. - (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; B.A.No.4067 of 2024 -:8:- - (vi) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while 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 the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are 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 B.A.No.4067 of 2024 -:9:- 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** mtk/01.08.24