Jemsheer vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 11531 Ker

   Crl.A.236/21                      1

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

   THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                            CRL.A.No.236 OF 2021

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 228/2021 DATED 24-03-2021 OF
      SPECIAL COURT (ATROCITIES AGAINST SC/ST), MANJERI

     CRIME NO.96/2021 OF Manjeri Police Station , Malappuram


APPELLANT/S:

                  JEMSHEER
                  AGED 38 YEARS
                  S/O. ABDULLA, ARUVEETTIL HOUSE, MANJERI N. S.S.
                  COLLEGE P. O., NOW RESIDING AT MULLAMPARA ULLAS
                  NAGAR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

                  BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

RESPONDENT/S:

       1          THE STATE OF KERALA
                  REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
                  KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682 031.

       2          THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
                  MANJERI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
                  676 121.

       3          GAYATHRI NANDANA V. P.
                  AGED 21 YEARS
                  D/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, VILLUNNI PARAMBIL HOUSE,
                  MANKADA P. O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 324.

                  R3 BY ADV. SHRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR

OTHER PRESENT:

                  R1 and R2 by SPL.PP.AMBIKA DEVI FOR ATROCITIES
                  AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
    Crl.A.236/21                         2




                                 V.G.ARUN, J.
                  -----------------------------------------------
                           CRL.A.No.236 of 2021
                  -----------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 8th day of April, 2021

                                  JUDGMENT

Appellant is the accused in Crime No.96 of 2021 registered at the

Manjeri Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 354,

354A(1)(i), 354D(1)(i) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)

(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Amendment Act. The crime has been registered at the

instance of the 3rd respondent, who alleges that, at about 12.40 p.m on

4.3.2021, the accused caught hold of her right hand and caused

injuries by scratching on the hand, pushed her on the chest, caught

hold of her churidar and thereby outraged her modesty. Further, the

accused abused her in public by calling out her caste name, knowing

fully well that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste community. The

accused was arrested on 6.3.2021 and is continuing in custody. The

application for bail filed before the Special Court stands rejected by the

impugned order.

2. Sri.Babu S.Nair, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted

that the accused has been in custody for more than 32 days and there

is no justification in denying bail to him. It is argued that the 3 rd

respondent had levelled false allegations against the appellant at the

instance of her employer. It is submitted that the 3 rd respondent's

employer, who is the actual aggressor, had beaten up the appellant

by about 1 p.m on 4.3.2021. That, having sustained injuries in the

attack, the appellant had gone to the nearby hospital for treatment

and had thereafter gone to the police station to lodge a complaint.

Since the Police refused to register the FIR, he approached the superior

Police Officer and was directed to go back to the police station and was

arrested when he went to the Police Station on the second occasion.

As regards the findings in the impugned order that the appellant is

involved in various crimes and even proceedings under Section 107

Cr.P.C was initiated against him, learned counsel submitted that in all

the cases mentioned in the impugned order, the appellant had been

acquitted. That, despite false information having been submitted by

the local Police, the Sub Divisional Magistrate refused to initiate action

under Section 107. The reason for non-registration of FIR on the

appellant's complaint is stated to be the personal animosity of the

Circle Inspector and Sub Inspectors of Police towards him, for having

filed a civil suit against them. Finally, it is contended that, even if the

allegations are accepted for the sake of argument, there is no reason

to deny bail after 32 days of custody.

3. Smt.Ambika Devi, learned Special Public Prosecutor opposed

the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant is a history-

sheeter involved in various other crimes and the action of the

appellant of catching hold of the 3rd respondent in public, outraging her

modesty and abusing her by calling caste name are grievous offences.

According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the Special Court having

passed a well reasoned order, no interference is warranted in appeal.

4. Sri.T.K.Ajitkumar, learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd

respondent also opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the

appellant is a notorious criminal, who do not deserve leniency. It is

submitted that the 3rd respondent apprehends further attack from the

appellant, if he is released on bail.

5. Having heard the respective counsel and having considered

the seriousness of the offences committed by the appellant and the

period of custody undergone by him, I am inclined to allow the appeal.

Even though the alleged offences are serious in nature, that is no

justification for continuing the appellant's custody. The investigation

having achieved progress, release of the appellant on bail would not

hamper the investigation in any manner. The apprehension of the

appellant causing harm to the 3rd respondent can be addressed by

imposing stringent conditions.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed as under;

I) The appellant shall be released on bail on executing

bond for Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with

two solvent sureties for the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the lower court.

II) The appellant shall not enter the limits of the Manjeri

Police Station for a period of one month.

III) The appellant shall not make any attempt to

intimidate or contact the 3rd respondent.

IV) The appellant shall not commit any similar offence

during the subsistence of this order.

If any one of the above conditions is violated, the

prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of the

appellant's bail.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

vgs