HIGH COURT OF KERALA
GOPINATH P, J
BIJU CHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 9125/2023
Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Indian Penal Code: Sections 341, 506, 294(b), 323, 354, 34 - Summary: The court analyzed allegations under IPC provisions, especially Section 354 concerning outraging modesty. It concluded that while one petitioner would not be granted bail due to evidence present, the other could, given lesser involvement in the alleged act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, accused of several IPC offences including Section 354, appealed for anticipatory bail citing innocence and contradictions in the complaint. The allegations were made during an incident involving a court-ordered site inspection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first petitioner allegedly committed actions constituting offenses under IPC, particularly Section 354, influenced by statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. However, the second petitioner did not have sufficient evidence against her for such charges.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail considering the allegations of assault and outraging modesty against the first petitioner and the lesser involvement of the second.
Ratio Decidendi: For anticipatory bail under these circumstances, strong allegations must exist; the first petitioner faced substantial allegations while the second's involvement was insufficient to deny her bail.
Final Decision: Anticipatory bail application dismissed for the first petitioner; granted for the second petitioner under specific conditions.
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1030/2023 Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur district, alleging commission of offences under Sections 341 , 506, 294(b), 323, 354 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code .
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that, on
23-09-2023, at about 5.00 PM, the 1st petitioner outraged the modesty and inflicted voluntary hurt upon the defacto complainant and her advocate owing to the fact that the defacto complainant, her advocate and an advocate commissioner appointed by the Munsiff Court, Thrissur had visited the property of the accused persons in execution of a commission warrant issued by the Munsiff Court, Thrissur in O.S.No.1658/2023.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners on the instructions of Adv.P.K.Varghese would contend that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that, even if the entire allegations are accepted as true, the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is not attracted and since that is the only non bailable offence alleged, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. It is submitted that the defacto complainant is a practicing lawyer. It is submitted that, even if the petitioners had objected to the measurement of the property by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Munsiff Court, Thrissur, the petitioners cannot be alleged to have committed the non bailable offence under of the . It is submitted that there is nothing in the First Information Statement of the defacto complainant or in the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner before the Munsiff Court, Thrissur, to suggest that the petitioners had committed any of the offences alleged against them. It is submitted that there is a material contradicition in the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner and the complaint filed by the defacto complainant. It is submitted that, while in the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner it is stated that she had been prevented from executing the commission warrant by the petitioners by snatching away the measuring tape from her hand, in the complaint filed by the defacto complainant, it is stated that the measuring tape was snatched away from the hands of the lawyer appearing for the defacto complainant. It is submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering that, at the instance of the petitioners Crime No.1032/2023 at the very same Police Station has been registered against the defacto complainant and others, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for additional respondents 2 and 3 would vehemently oppose the grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioners in the First Information Statement of the defacto complainant. It is submitted that the First Information Statement of the defacto complainant it is stated as follows:
" xxxx xxxx xxxx
5. 00 ഇന്ന് വൈ(cid:6)കിട്ട് മണി കഴിഞ്ഞ സമയം ഞങ്ങൾക്ക് അന്യായം ഫയൽ ചെ(cid:28)യ്ത അഡ്വക്കേക്കറ്റ് ക്കേ"ാൺ നക്കേ$ലി ജൂനിയറും മുൻസിഫ് ക്കേകാടതിയിൽ നിന്നും ക്കേനാട്ടീസ് ചെസർ(cid:6)് ചെ(cid:28)യ്യുന്നതിന് ക്കേ(cid:6)ണ്ടി ആമിനും അഡ്വക്കേക്കറ്റ് കമ്മിഷണർ അഡ്വക്കേക്കറ്റ് അർഷ സാറും ഒന്നിച്ച്
.
സ്ഥലചെ88ി ആമിൻ ക്കേനാട്ടീസ് ബിജു (cid:28)ന്ദ്രന് ചെസർ(cid:6)് ചെ(cid:28)യ്തു അതുകഴിഞ്ഞ് അഡ്വക്കേക്കറ്റ് കമ്മിഷണർ തർക്കമുള്ള (cid:6)ഴി ക്കേടപ്പ് ഉപക്കേയാഗിച്ച്
.
അളക്കാൻ തുടങ്ങി അക്കേപ്പാൾ അഡ്വക്കേക്കറ്റ് കമ്മിഷണർ മാത്രം അളന്നാൽ മതിചെയന്നും അചെEങ്കിൽ അളക്കണ്ട എന്നും പറഞ്ഞ് എചെI .
(cid:6)ക്കീലിചെI വൈകയ്യിൽ നിന്നും ക്കേടപ്പ് ബലമായി പിടിച്ചു(cid:6)ാങ്ങി അക്കേപ്പാൾ എചെI (cid:6)ക്കീൽ അഡ്വക്കേക്കറ്റ് കമ്മീഷണക്കേറാട് തർക്കമുള്ള (cid:6)ഴി നടന്ന്
.
കാണാൻ പറഞ്ഞു അക്കേപ്പാൾ അത് എചെI (cid:6)ഴിയാണ് നിങ്ങൾ നടന്ന്
.
കാണണ്ട തിരിച്ചുക്കേപാക്കാളാൻ ബിജു പറഞ്ഞു ആ സമയം ഈ പ്രശ് നം
.
പരിഹരിക്കാൻ ഞങ്ങചെള അനു(cid:6)ദിക്കണം എന്ന് ഞാൻ പറഞ്ഞു ആ "
സമയം എചെ
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.