Unais C.M. v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Bedakom Police Station, Kasaragod

## `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. 3985 OF 2024` ``` CRIME NO.168/2024 OF BEDAKOM POLICE STATION, KASARGOD ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` UNAIS C.M., AGED 35 YEARS S/O. A.H MUHAMMED, MEETHAL VALAPLE (H), BEDADUKKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD, PIN – 671541 ``` ``` BY ADVS.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY M.I.JOHNSON B.M. JAMAL PATEL SADIQUE M.K. ``` ## `RESPONDENTS:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BEDAKOM POLICE STATION, KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN – 671541 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ## `SR PP SMT NEEMA T V` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.3985/2024_ _-: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.168/2024 of the Bedakom Police Station, Kasaragod, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354A(1)(i), 354(A)(ii) & 354A(1)(iv) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that: on 26.04.2024, at around 19.30 hours, the accused and the supporters had rushed to the school ground, where the recent Lok Sabha elections were held, and they abused the de-facto complainant and her supporters in obscene language and insulted the de-facto complainant. While, the de-facto complainant was on _B.A.No.3985/2024_ _-:3:-_ the nearby road to take her scooter, the accused passed sexually coloured remarks and groped her breasts. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. T.K. Saidalikutty, the learned counsel appearing 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 leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime by the de-facto complainant, who is his political rival. The fact that the alleged incident occurred on 26.04.2024 and Annexure-A1 First Information Report [FIR] was registered on the following day proves the hollowness in the complaint. The Investigating Officer had initially refused to register the crime; but subsequently, due to the political pressure he has registered the crime. The _B.A.No.3985/2024_ _-:4:-_ petitioner is the State Secretary of the Youth Congress and is actively participating in all political activities. It is only to tarnish the petitioner's image, reputation and his political career, that the present crime is registered. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail objection report, inter-alia, contending that on 26.04.2024, the petitioner had abused the de-facto complainant in obscene language, and, thereafter, groped her on her breasts. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would certainly hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it _B.A.No.3985/2024_ _-:5:-_ can be seen that both the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are politicians. They owe allegiance to rival political parties. There is an allegation that the petitioner had made a social media post on 24.04.2024 making allegations against the de-facto complainant. He also posted a video to substantiate his post. It is out of this animosity that the de-facto complainant has lodged the present complaint. On the contrary, the prosecution alleges that the petitioner had abused the de-facto complainant in obscene language and also outraged her modesty by groping her breasts. However, these are all matters 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 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 _B.A.No.3985/2024_ _-:6:-_ 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 anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are politicians owing allegiance to two political parties, that the alleged incident occurred subsequent to the petitioner making a post on the social media, that the alleged incident took place on the Lok Sabha election day and prima facie there is no material to substantiate the petitioner’s involvement in the crime, though that is a matter to be investigated and ultimately decided at the time of trial, I am _B.A.No.3985/2024_ _-:7:-_ satisfied that the petitioner has made out valid grounds to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the application. 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 him 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 _B.A.No.3985/2024_ _-:8:-_ person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them 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, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; - (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 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.3985/2024_ _-:9:-_ - (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) Any observations made in this order is only for the purpose of deciding the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/01.08.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge