Tinu M. v. State of Kerala and Vineetha G.J.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4252 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.407/2024 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.04.2024 IN MC NO.920 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM / I ADDITIONAL MACT PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ``` ``` TINU M., AGED 38 YEARS ``` ``` S/O. MARIYADAS,GOVERNMENT SERVANT, RESIDING AT TINU BHAVAN, PAMBOOUR, PANACODE, UZHAMALACKAL VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695542 BY ADVS. GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL T.S.RAJASENAN R.B.BALACHANDRAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 VINEETHA G.J., AGED 38 YEARS`** - **`D/O. R. JANARDHANAN ACHARI, HARSHAM, PAHAVADI STREET, NEDUMANGAD (P.O.), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695541`** ``` SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEETHA S. ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.4252 of 2024 _-:2:-_ Dated this the 3[rd] day of June, 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.407/2024 of the Nedumangad Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 354D and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that: the accused had outraged the modesty of the de facto complainant by touching her body with a sexual intent in the KSRTC bus stand at Nedumangad. The accused is a colleague of the de facto complainant. He proposed B.A.No.4252 of 2024 _-:3:-_ his love towards the de facto complainant. When the de facto complainant denied his proposal, the accused voluntarily caused hurt and also intimidated her. He started stalking with the de facto complainant and sent anonymous letter to the de facto complainant. On 24.1.2022, the accused was transferred to the office of the Joint Director, South Zone, Thiruvananthapuram. While he was working there, he made serious allegations against the appointment of certain officers. Then, the officers suspected that the accused was the whistle blower. the accused was Consequently, suspended from service on 22.1.2024. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri.Gopakumar R.Thaliyal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner B.A.No.4252 of 2024 _-:4:-_ submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of Annexure-A1 FIR would substantiate that the offence under Section 354 of the IPC will not be attracted against the petitioner. The said offence has been deliberately incorporated to deny bail to the petitioner and to harass the petitioner. In fact, it is out of the animosity of the de facto complainant that she had lodged a false complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application. She submitted that there are incriminating materials to show the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would certainly hamper B.A.No.4252 of 2024 _-:5:-_ with the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. On going through Annexure A1 FIR, it can be seen that the allegation against the petitioner is that he touched the body of the de facto complainant while she was standing at the KSRTC bus stand and, thereafter, he proposed his love towards her and sent indecent letters to her family by misusing the office computer. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 8. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, I am of the definite view that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to an order of prearrest bail, but subject to the condition that he B.A.No.4252 of 2024 _-:6:-_ 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. - (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 B.A.No.4252 of 2024 _-:7:-_ 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 said court within the said period; - (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. ## B.A.No.4252 of 2024 _-:8:-_ - (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]. SD/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rmm/3/6/2024