Kerala High Court
Ram Lal M vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2024
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
Bail Appln. No.2733 of 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 2733 OF 2024
CRIME NO.310/2024 OF Varkala Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.677 OF
2024 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM / I ADDITIONAL MACT
PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:
RAM LAL M
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O MANILAL, RESIDING AT SHARADA MANDIRAM,
KAKKANKUNNU, MELVETTOOR, VARKALA (PO),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695141
BY ADV N.SUNIL JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682 031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VARKALA POLICE STATION, VARKALA (PO),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695 141
OTHER PRESENT:
PP MAYA M.N.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appln. No.2733 of 2024
2
ORDER
Dated this the 11th day of April 2024
The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.310/2024
registered at the Varkala Police Station alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 354, 354A and
427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution allegation
is to the following effect:
2. On 27.02.2024 at about 20.30 hours, while the defacto
complainant was travelling in the autorickshaw driven by her
uncle, the accused, 8 in number, blocked the autorickshaw and
abused the driver in filthy language. When the defacto
complainant got down from the autorickshaw and tried to
intervene in the matter, the 1st accused outraged her modesty by
pressing her breast and when she got back into the autorickshaw,
attempted to molest her again, resulting in the defacto
complainant losing her thali chain worth Rs.55,000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no
such incident, as alleged, has occurred and even otherwise, no
overtact is alleged against the petitioner. It is submitted that the
1st accused, against whom the allegations are made, was granted
anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional sessions court.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, other than
the specific overtact alleged against the 1st accused, there is an
allegation that other accused, including the petitioner, showered
abuses on the defacto complainant and her uncle.
Insofar as the 1st accused is granted anticipatory bail by the
jurisdictional court after considering all aspects, I find no reason
to deny that benefit to the petitioner. Hence, the bail application
is allowed with the following directions:
i) In the event of the petitioner's arrest, in connection with
Crime No.310/2024 of Varkala Police Station, he shall be
released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties
for the like amount to the satisfaction of the
investigating officer.
ii) The petitioner shall not try to influence or intimidate the
defacto complainant or the witnesses in any manner
whatsoever.
iii) The petitioner shall not get involved in any offence of
similar nature while on bail.
iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the
jurisdictional court within two weeks of his release and
if he does not hold a passport, shall file an affidavit to
that effect before the jurisdictional court.
v) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation
and appear before the investigating officer as and when
required.
vi) For the purpose of recovery under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, if so required, the petitioner shall be
considered to be under deemed custody.
If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions,
the investigating officer will be at liberty to seek
cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.
Sd/-
V.G. Arun
Judge
vpv
