Bipin vs State Of Kerala

N.Nagaresh, J

The appellant, who is the accused in Crime No.842/2023 of Konni Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, is before this Court seeking regular bail.

The allegation against the appellant is that the defacto complainant and the appellant are persons known to each other. In January 2023, the defacto complainant preferred a complaint against the appellant before Konni Police Station and Konni Police registered a crime against the appellant. During investigation, the appellant obtained pre-arrest bail. After obtaining pre-arrest bail, the appellant reached the house of the defacto complainant on 31.07.2023 at about 8:30 p.m. and abused the defacto complainant with obscene words and by calling her by her caste name. It is alleged that the appellant caught hold of the neck of the defacto complainant and attempted to strangulate her and threatened her to do away with. In such circumstances, a complaint was given for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 447, 323, 506(i), 354 and 195(A) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The appellant moved the Session Court, Pathanamthitta, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying for regular bail. The Session Court noted that considering the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant immediately after obtaining bail in a previous case, no leniency need be shown to the appellant. The appellant has committed specific violation of condition No.(v) of bail order dated 27.06.2023 in C.M.P No.4026 of 2023 in Crime No.8 of 2023 of Konni Police Station. There are reasons to believe that the appellant has trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and strangulated her. If bail is granted to the appellant at this stage, that will pass a wrong message to the public. On these premises, the bail application was dismissed.

Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the court below ought to have noted that there is no prima facie case for attracting the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The allegations made are vague and unclear without any supporting evidence. The foundational facts are not disclosed, to attract the ingredients of the offences. On the face of the records, it is proved that the defacto complainant and her daughter are not belonging to SC/ST community to invoke the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant has sufficient solvent sureties to take him on bail. They are also ready and willing to abide by any conditions.

Public Prosecutor entered appearance and resisted the appeal. The Public Prosecutor pointed out that this is a case where the appellant while on bail, has violated the bail condition and assaulted the defacto complainant. If the appellant is granted bail, there is still likelihood of the appellant attacking the defacto complainant. In the facts of the case the appellant is not entitled to bail, urged the Public Prosecutor.

I have heard Counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor representing respondents 1 and 2.

The allegations against the appellant is that the defacto complainant and the petitioner are known to each other and they were living together till December 2022. In the month of January 2023 the defacto complainant preferred a complaint against the appellant before the Konni Police Station and the Konni Police registered a crime. The appellant obtained pre-arrest bail.

It is alleged that after obtaining the pre-arrest bail, the appellant on 31.07.2023 at about 8:30 p.m. abused the defacto complainant with obscene words and by calling her by her caste name. The appellant caught hold of the neck of the defecto complainant and attempted to strangulate her.

The Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation in respect of the crime is over and a charge sheet has been filed on 20.09.2023. The appellant was arrested on 03.08.2023. More than 74 days have passed since the arrest. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the appellant on strict conditions.

In the result, the Crl.A is allowed on the following conditions:

(i) The appellant shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

(ii) The appellant shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The appellant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. on every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(iv) The appellant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

(v) The appellant shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The appellant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial court.

(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.