In cases where the offences alleged are bailable and custodial interrogation is not necessary, anticipatory bail can be granted.

ORDER

This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1625 of 2022 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasargode District, alleging offences punishable under Sections 354A, 354A(1)(i), 354A(1)(iii), 354(1)(iv) and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 apart from Sections 67 and 67a of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. According to the prosecution on 22-11-2022, the accused who is a Doctor at the Government District Hospital, Kanhangad had sexually harassed the victim and also spoke with sexual intonation and expressed gestures and showed mobile phone with obscene videos and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4.Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution allegations are false and the petitioner had been targeted for oblique purposes. It was further submitted that petitioner is a reputed Doctor and has no criminal antecedents. According to the learned counsel, even if the entire allegations are assumed to be accepted for the purpose of argument sake, still same would not make out any non-bailable offence. However, the Investigating Officer has falsely implicated the petitioner in a non-bailable offence. The learned counsel also pointed out that even going by the version of the victim, there was no publishing or transmitting in an electronic form, any material which is lascivious or prurient and hence Section 67 of the IT Act cannot be attracted. The learned counsel further submitted that petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed upon.

6. Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and contended that the allegations are serious and that petitioner is a Doctor who had sexually harassed the victim who is a nursing student and aged only 21. According to the prosecutor if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, prejudice will occassion to the victim and also that there is every chance that petitioner may influence the witnesses.

7. I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the statement of the victim, including the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

8. Petitioner is alleged to have spoken to the victim in a sexual manner and even showed her obscene photos on his mobile phone. Though the allegations prima facie constitute offences under Section 354A, those offences are bailable. Since victim has not stated that petitioner had circulated obscene videos but has only shown her a video on his phone, custodial interrogation is not essential.

9. I am of the view that, if circumstances indicate that limited custody of the petitioner would suffice the investigation and custodial interrogation is not necessary.

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 17-01-2023 and shall subject himself to interrogation from 9.am to 6.pm.

(ii) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.

(iii) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.

(iv) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or her family members.

(v) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM/11/01/23