w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Vipin @ Suttu v/s State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

    Bail Appl. No. 4450 of 2018

    Decided On, 12 July 2018

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN

    For the Petitioner: E.C. Poulose, C. Bobby Rapheal, Advocates. For the Respondents: Amjad Ali, Public Prosecutor.



Judgment Text

1. This application is filed under 438 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.495 of 2018 of the Edathala Police Station, registered under 354A, 452 323 and 324 of the IPC.

3. The de facto complainant is a married woman. The applicant is her neighbour. According to the prosecution, the applicant used to persistently harass her to the consternation of her family members. Though she w

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

as asked to curtail his actions, it was of any avail. On 14.6.2018 at about 8.30 p.m., the applicant is alleged to have trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and he is alleged to have touched her breasts with sexual intent after making some sexually coloured remarks. When the husband and brother of the de facto complainant came to her rescue, the applicant is alleged to have inflicted injuries with an iron rod.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that there were property disputes between the applicant and the husband of the de facto complainant. On the date of incident, the applicant was brutally manhandled by the husband of the de facto complainant and her brother for frivolous reasons. He suffered fracture of his ribs and skull bone apart from other injuries. The applicant was initially taken to the Taluk Hospital, Aluva, from where he was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, for treatment as inpatient. According to the learned counsel, the allegation of sexual abuse was raised only as a counter blast to set up a defense. To substantiate his contention that the allegations in the instant crime is not true, it is submitted that though it is alleged that the applicant had inflicted serious injuries with an iron rod, their wound certificates would not corroborate the said aspect. The learned counsel refers to Annexure-A1 discharge summary to substantiate his point. It is further submitted that Crime No.497 of 2018 has been registered at the Edathala Police Station against the accused, inter alia, under 325 r/w 34 of the IPC.

5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone through the case diary.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced. Annexure-A1 wound certificate reveals that the applicant had suffered rib fracture and fracture of the frontal bone in an incident which took place at 8.30 p.m., on 14.6.2018. The accused are the husband and brother of the de facto complainant. The prosecution has no case that the applicant is a person with criminal antecedents or that it would be difficult to secure his presence. Though it is alleged that the applicant had inflicted serious injuries, the wound certificate of the victims in the instant case does not reveal so.

7. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role assigned, the severity of injuries sustained by the applicant and attendant facts, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessitous.

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if she is proposed to be arrested, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i)The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

ii) He 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/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

iii) He shall not enter the limits of the Edathala Police Station for a period of three months.

iv) He shall not enter the house of the de facto complainant or make any attempt to contact her .

v) He shall not commit any similar offence while 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.
O R