Sreeraj R vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 5614 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5614 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 May, 2023

Kerala High Court

Sreeraj R vs State Of Kerala on 12 May, 2023

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
      FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 22ND VAISAKHA, 1945
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 3417 OF 2023
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMC 880/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT &
                       SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

            SREERAJ R,
            AGED 27 YEARS
            S/O RAJU ,S .R NIVAS HOUSE, ERIKKAVU, KARTHIKAPALLY
            P.O,. KUMARAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690516.

            BY ADVS.
            HEMANTH H.
            P.T.SHEEJISH


RESPONDENT/STATE:

            STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.




            SRI.P.G.MANU, SR. PP


     THIS   BAIL    APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
12.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 3417 OF 2023          2




                          P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
                         -------------------------------
                           B.A.No. 3417 of 2023
            --------------------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 12th day of May, 2023

                                 ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The petitioner is the accused in crime No.299 of

2023 of Palarivattam Police Station. The offences alleged were

under Sections 354, 354 (i) (iv), 509 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. The prosecution case is that on 9.2.2023, the

petitioner and the 2nd accused with the intention to outrage the

modesty of defacto complainant offered a job of personal

secretary to her. When she reached the institution of the

petitioner, upon his instruction, the 2nd accused took defacto

complaint inside and asked the defacto complainant to take a

bath and come with covering her private parts by a towel. The

defacto complainant refused and upon this the 2 nd accused

touch the shoulder and hip of the defacto complainant.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would

contend that the petitioner is innocent and the case was foisted

by the de facto complainant to extract money from him. It is his

contention that considering the nature of the offences and the

complicity alleged against him, his custodial interrogation is

absolutely unnecessary.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand,

would contend that the petitioner has actively involved in the

commission of the offence and as such, his custodial

interrogation is absolutely necessary. Therefore, the

application is liable only to be dismissed.

7. The petitioner is the owner of the institution where the

alleged incident has taken place. Going by the allegations in

the FIR, it was the 2nd accused who took lead role in

committing the alleged offence. Since the investigation is

going on, I do not express any opinion in that regard.

8. Considering the whole circumstances and the

materials on record, I am of the view that the petitioner can be

granted anticipatory bail on strict conditions.

9. In such circumstances, this bail application is

allowed and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the

investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and

in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail

on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty

thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount

each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the

following conditions:

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday and Friday for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier;

(ii) He shall not leave the limits of the jurisdictional court without prior permission of the Magistrate until further orders;

(iii) He shall not go abroad without the permission of the jurisdictional Court and shall surrender his passport before the investigating officer, and in case he does not have a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect;

(iv) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence; and

(v) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence.

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution

shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before

the jurisdictional court.