Ratheesh v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/27TH KARTHIKA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 7145 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1812/2015 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION, TRISSUR DISTRICT --------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

--------------------------------- RATHEESH, AGED 24 YEARS,S/O. KUNJIRAMAN, POITHANATHIL HOUSE, DHARBHA DESOM, MANDAMANGALAMR VILLAGE, THRISSUR BY ADVS.SRI.K.SURESH SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON RESPONDENT :

-------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. T.Y. LALIZA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

------------------------------------------------ B.A.No.7145 of 2015 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2015

O R D E R

Application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1812 of 2015 of Ollur Police Station (in the application it is wrongly shown as Crime No.256 of 2015 of Ollur Police Station) registered for the offences punishable under Section 354 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 11(i) and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3.

Prosecution case is that the petitioner while working as a cleaner in a private bus, on various occasions misbehaved towards and uttered obscene words to the defacto complainant and thereby committed sexual harassment an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

4.

Heard both sides.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he filed a complaint against 4 persons for assaulting

B.A.No.7145 of 2015 him on 24.09.2015. It is alleged that the defacto complainant's relatives assaulted him. Subsequently, a false complaint is filed against him is the allegation. 6.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

7.

I have perused the case diary. Materials in the case diary do not justify a plea for pre-arrest bail as there are prima facie indications of his involving in the alleged offences.

Therefore, the bail application is dismissed. Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

AS /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge