SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 19710

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.R.ANITHA, J
BYJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./7532/2021



Advocates:
S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA), JOHNSON GOMEZ, SANJAY JOHNSON, JOHN GOMEZ, SREEDEVI S.

Bail can be granted when evidence does not strongly support the charges against the accused.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Offences - IPC Sections 323, 324, 427, 354 - Court granted bail to accused based on allegations and potential defenses presented.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners are accused of assaulting the defacto complainant and her sister, resulting in injuries and loss of gold ornaments, during an alleged incident at a residence.

Finding of the Court:

The court reviewed wound certificates and arguments about the nature of the allegations, particularly regarding the application of Section 354 IPC, suggesting a lack of substantial evidence.

Issues: Whether the allegations constitute offenses under the IPC and if bail should be granted to the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail was granted due to insufficient evidence to firmly establish the charges under Section 354 IPC, and the court imposed stringent conditions for bail.

Final Decision: Bail application is allowed with conditions.

O R D E R

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime No.569/2021 of Paripally Police Station, Kollam, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 324, 427 and 354 r/w Section 34 IPC .

2. It is alleged that on 30.09.2021 at about 3.45 p.m., the defacto complainant reached the house of her sister knowing about the assault of her sister at the hands of the first petitioner. Thereupon, the first accused caught hold of her hair and hit her head at the gate and injury was caused by some weapon which was concealed in a cloth and when she fell down, she was hit with a stone on her back and thereby caused contusion. It is also alleged that her churidar was pulled and the second accused inflicted injuries by hitting with a scooter and also hitting on her back and legs. When another sister of the defacto complainant tried to intervene, the first accused attacked her also. It is further alleged that during the course of the incident, four sovereigns of gold ornaments of the sister was also lost. Thereby the accused committed the offence aforementioned.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor produced the copy of the report of the SHO along copy of FIR and FIS. The wound certificates of the defacto complainant and the sisters are also produced. In the wound certificate of Manju, there is a lacerated wound of 2x2 cm. In the wound certificate of Bindu, there are no external injury. In the wound certificate of the defacto complainant abrasion and lacerated wound are noted.

5. However, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was working at abroad and during that period his daughter eloped with another man and in connection with that he filed Annexure A2 complaint under Section 57 of the Police Act and they are in inimical terms. But the question here is whether the offence under Section 354 IPC is attracted as per the alleged incident in this case. In order to attract , the only allegation in the FIS is pulling the churidar alone.

In the said circumstances, considering the allegations regarding the dispute between the petitioners and first petitioner's wife and family members, bail can be granted to the petitioners on stringent conditions (i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties for like sum each in the event of arrest by the police in connection with the above crime.

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation within seven days. They shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

(iii) The petitioners 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 petitioners 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.

The Bail Application is allowed accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top