Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2759
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 1444 OF 2024
CRIME NO.59/2024 OF Ramapuram Police Station, Kottayam
PETITIONER/S:
CHERIYAN.K.D
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O.DEVASIA, OZHUKAYIL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, KIZHATHIRI.P.O.,
MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686576
BIVIN CHERIYAN
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.CHERIYAN.K.D, OZHUKAYIL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE,
KIZHATHIRI.P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686576
SUBIN CHERIYAN
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.CHERIYAN.K.D, OZHUKAYIL HOUSE, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE,
KIZHATHIRI.P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686576
BY ADV RASHEED C.NOORANAD
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN -
682031
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
RAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686576
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP-SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SOPHY THOMAS, J.
=====================
========================
The intention to outrage the modesty of a woman under Section 354 of the IPC requires a sexual intent, which was not present in this case.
Headnote:
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - SECTION 354 IPC - OUTRAGING MODESTY OF A WOMAN - NO SEXUAL INTENTION - BAIL GRANTED
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were accused of trespassing into the shop of the de facto complainant, assaulting her, and tearing off her nighty. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners intended to outrage her modesty under Section 354 of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not reveal that the petitioners had any sexual intention to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant. The court noted that the statement given by the de facto complainant was that the petitioners tore off her nighty during a quarrel.
Issues: Whether the petitioners intended to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant under Section 354 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners did not have any sexual intention to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant. The court relied on the statement given by the de facto complainant, which indicated that the petitioners tore off her nighty during a quarrel.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the following conditions: (i) they must surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 11.03.2024; (ii) they must execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- each, with two solvent sureties each for the like sum; (iii) they must appear before the investigating officer as and when directed; (iv) they must not influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the investigation; (v) they must not commit any offence while on bail; and (vi) the trial court is empowered to cancel their bail in case of violation of these conditions.
O R D E R
Dated this the 05th day of March, 2024 This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 59 of 2024 of Ramapuram Police Station, Kottayam, registered under Sections 447, 427, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 354 and 506(ii) r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution allegation is that, on 25.01.2024 at about
10.0 p.m., the petitioners trespassed into the shop of the de facto complainant named ‘Kili Light and Sound’ and assaulted the de facto complainant on her neck using an iron rod, and tore off her nighty, outraging her modesty. When her husband intervened, he was also assaulted by the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners caused damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- by destroying the sound system in their shop.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, wife of the 1st petitioner is a cardiac patient. The de facto complainant used to play music in her light and sound shop during night hours in loud noise, causing nuisance to the neighbours. The petitioners questioned her regarding the nuisance caused, and then there occurred some altercations.
They are having no criminal antecedents and they are ready to abide by any of the conditions imposed by this Court.
6. The only non-bailable offence alleged is under Section
354 of IPC. The allegations will not reveal that the petitioners did anything with sexual intention to outrage her modesty. The statement given by the de facto complainant in order to attract an offence under Section 354 of IPC is that the petitioners tore off her nighty during the quarrel between them.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that no criminal antecedents are noted against the petitioners.
The investigation has progressed substantially.
8. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow this bail application on the following terms:-
i. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 11.03.2024, and subject themselves for interrogation. The investigating officer shall interrogate them to collect all materials and evidence relevant for the purpose of investigation.
ii. In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) by each, with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer;
iii. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer as and when directed.
iv. The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the investigation.
v. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.
vi. In case of violation of these conditions, the trial court is empowered to cancel their bail, in accordance with law.
