Sreedhara Menon v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MAY 2015/18TH VAISAKHA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 1905 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 420/2015 OF KUNNICODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT --------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 :
---------------------------------------------
1. SREEDHARA MENON, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. BSM NAIR, KUZHIVELIL VEEDUR, VILLOOR, VETTIKAVALA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2. PANKAJAKSHI AMMA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O. SREEDHARA MENON, KUZHIVELIL VEEDU, VILLOOR, VETTIKKAVALA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT
3. MANU, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. SUBRAMANYAN PILLAI, MANGALATHU PUTHENVEEDU, MELILA, KUNNIKKODU, KOTTARAKKARA KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.S.VIJAYAN SRI.N.MUHAMMAD SAJU SRI.C.PAULOSE SRI.SREEDHARAN KARATTA SMT.RESHMA ABDUL RASHEED RESPONDENT :
--------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ROY THOMAS THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
P.UBAID, J ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of May, 2015
ORDER
The petitioners herein seek pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No.420/2015 of Kunnicode Police Station registered under Sections 323, 324, 341, 294 (b), 354 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC.
2.
The prosecution case is that the petitioners assaulted the defacto complainant and her husband in connection with some other dispute and inflicted simple injuries on their body. The petitioners seek bail on the ground that even as per the allegations made by the complaint, it is only a case of assault, and something more is required to constitute the offence under Section 354 IPC. 3.
This application for pre arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused are now released, it will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.
4.
On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary, I find that investigation in the crime is
practically over, and that the petitioners can be granted pre arrest bail. On a perusal of the case diary, I find that the investigating officer has already questioned the material witnesses and has recovered the necessary materials. In the particular facts and circumstances and in the nature of the allegations, and also the nature of the materials required for prosecution, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case. This is not a case where something will have to be collected by way of custodial interrogation. I find that the police has gone a long way with investigation, and has already collected the essential things. I do not find the necessity of detention of the petitioners in custody for the purpose of investigation in the above circumstances. It will suffice that the petitioners are directed to report before the investigating officer periodically. However, some other conditions are also felt necessary for bail. 5.
On a perusal on the entire materials I find that this is only a case of simple assault wherein the defacto complainant and her husband sustained some injuries. There is reason to believe that there is some other dispute between the parties. In view of the fact that the alleged incident happened in connection with the other dispute, it is really doubtful whether
this is in fact a case under Section 354 IPC. A mere assault on a lady will not attract Section 354 IPC. To make such an offence, punishable under Section 354 IPC something more by way of some indecent or unholy intention to humiliate a lady is required. It appears that there is unhealthy practice these days, that whenever a complaint of assault is made on a lady, the police will register FIR immediately under Section 354 IPC. It is made clear that for such an offense, something more than use of force or assault is required. Anyway, let the matter be probed into and decided by the trial court.
6.
In the result, this petition for pre-arrest bail is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing bond with two solvent sureties for 25,000/- ₹ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No.420/2015 of the Kunnicode Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Thursdays for a period of two months.
b) The petitioners shall not leave the
limits of Kunnicode Police Station for two months. c) The petitioners shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or they shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.
Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE rkj //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE