Anticipatory bail can be granted even for serious allegations if custodial interrogation is not deemed necessary.

ORDER

These are applications seeking pre-arrest bail filed under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .

2. Petitioners in B.A.No.8132/2022, are accused Nos. 1 & 3 while the petitioner in B.A.No.7837/2022, is accused No.2 (wrongly mentioned as accused No.3 in the bail application) in Crime No.849/2022 of Kattakkada Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 341, 342, 323, 324 and 354 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

3. According to the prosecution, 1st accused is the station master of the KSRTC Aryanad depot, while 2nd accused is a clerk and the 3rd accused is a conductor employed with the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). Petitioners along with other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on 20.09.2022 and verbally abused and assaulted the defacto complainant and his daughter who had approached them to renew a concession certificate. Though initially, the offence under Section 354 IPC was not included, subsequently, on the basis of the statement of the daughter of the defacto complainant, the offence under the said Section was also added, alleging that the accused had outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant’s daughter.

4. Sri.Suman Chakravarthy and Sri.K.K.Dheerendrakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the respective bail applications contended that petitioners are innocent of the crime. It was submitted that due to public outrage based on a distorted video and due to wrong media publicity, petitioners have been arrayed as accused, alleging non bailable offences. The learned counsel further contended that no overt acts have been alleged against the petitioners which would fall within the contours of Section 354 IPC and that the said Section has been incorporated with oblique motives. It was also submitted that petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed upon them.

5. Sri.Noushad.K.A and Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutors, opposed the grant of bail and contended that the allegations are serious and that petitioners are alleged to have assaulted and outraged the modesty of the defacto complainant and his daughter on 20.09.2022. The Prosecutor also pointed out that the video of the incident had been leaked out to the media and that there was a public outrage over the incident. The learned Public Prosecutors vehemently contended that, if petitioners are released on anticipatory bail, the same will sent a wrong message to the public.

6. I have considered the rival contentions and have also perused the statement of the defacto complainant as well as that of his daughter, given on 20.09.2022. On the request of the counsel for the petitioners, I have watched the video of the incident as retrieved by the Investigating Officer and handed over by the learned Public Prosecutors.

7. Even though the video of the incident had been leaked through the media and had gone viral, creating a public outcry against the incident, this Court ought not and cannot be swayed by such sentiments and has to strictly confine itself to the allegations and the statements given by the witnesses and its legal implications.

8. The only non bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is that under Section 354 IPC , which relates to outraging the modesty of a woman. The remaining offences are admittedly, all bailable.

9. The ingredient necessary for making out an offence under Section 354 of IPC is “assault or use of criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty” (emphasis supplied). Reference in this context to the decisions inSasidharan v. State of Kerala [2005(3) KLT 185] andVijayan v. State of Kerala [2021(1)KLT SN 4] are relevant. In those decisions it has been held that the assault contemplated under must be on a woman and must have been used with an intention to outrage her modesty.

10. What constitutes an outrage to a woman’s modesty has no