Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SHIRCY V., J
JOHN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./9167/2020
Bail - Accused in IPC and Disability Act Offences - IPC Sections 341, 451, 354, 354(A)1(ii); Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 Section 92(b) - The court granted bail based on the nature of offences, duration of custody, and other facts, imposing conditions to ensure compliance and prevent tampering.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused of multiple offences, including those under IPC for trespass and outraging modesty, claimed the allegations were false, stemming from a money dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the nature of the offences, duration of custody, and nearing completion of investigation, leading to a decision favoring bail with conditions to protect the integrity of the proceedings.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the severity of the offences and circumstances outlined in the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to balance the severity of the charges against the principles of justice, including presumption of innocence and duration of pre-trial custody.
Final Decision: Bail granted with specific conditions.
ORDER
Dated this the 2nd day of February 2021 Application for regular bail.
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1274/2020 of Mala Police Station, Thrissur District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 451, 354, 354(A)1(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 92 (b) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 .
2. The petitioner has been in custody since 05.12.2020.
3. The prosecution allegation is that on 03.12.2020 at about 21.30 hours this petitioner has trespassed into the residential house of the defacto complainant and with the intention to outrage the modesty of the daughter-in-law of the defacto complainant, who is a mentally retarded person, hugged her and touched on her breast and there by committed the aforesaid offences.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations levelled against him are absolutely false and baseless. In fact, he had some money transaction with the defacto complainant. On 03.12.2020 he went to his residence and demanded the money but he refused to return the same and then he told that he would initiate legal proceedings against him. Infuriated by the same, he has been falsely implicated in the case, at the instance of the defacto complainant.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the investigation is nearing completion.
6. Having regard to the nature of the offences levelled against this petitioner, the duration of judicial custody undergone by him as well the other facts involved in this case, I am inclined to release him on bail subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.
(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing.
(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise 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.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
