SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajeev.R vs State Of Kerala on 12 February, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.271 OF 2020

IN CRIME NO.972/2019 OF ARUVIKKARA POLICE STATION ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL DISTRICT REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 451, 294(b), 323, 324 AND 354 OF THE
INDIAN PENAL CODE

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

RAJEEV.R
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.RAJENDRAN, RESIDING AT MELETHAIKOOTTATHIL
VEEDU, IRUMBA, ARUVIKKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN- 695564.

BY ADVS.
SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SHRI.SUMEEN S.

RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

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

SRI AMJAD ALI-SR PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.02.2020, THE COURT ON 12.02.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.271/2020
2

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
************************
B.A.No.271 of 2020
————————————————-
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2020

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in the case registered

as Crime No.972/2019 of Aruvikkara Police Station under

Sections 451, 294(b), 323, 324 and 354 I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case is that, on 08.12.2019, at about

19.30 hours, the petitioner criminally trespassed into the

tailoring shop conducted by the de facto complainant and beat

her on the head with an iron rod and that he caught hold of her

chest and outraged her modesty and beat on her chest with his

hand and pushed her down.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
B.A.No.271/2020
3

the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary.

5. The only non-bailable offence alleged against the

petitioner is under Section 354 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the

petitioner would contend that it is a case of simple assault and

there was no assault made on the de facto complainant by the

petitioner with the intention to outrage her modesty. It is a

matter of evidence whether it is only a case of simple assault or

not. The fact remains that the petitioner had allegedly caught

hold of the body of the de facto complainant, who is not a

relative or friend of him, without her consent. Such act was

committed in the presence of members of the public. In order to

attract the offence under Section 354 I.P.C, intention to outrage

the modesty of a woman is not necessary. It is sufficient if the

assault or use of criminal force on a woman was made with the

knowledge that such act was likely to outrage her modesty. The

discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail cannot be granted to a

person who has allegedly done such act. The petition is liable to

be dismissed.

B.A.No.271/2020
4

6. In the result, the prayer for granting pre-arrest bail to

the petitioner is rejected and the petition is dismissed.

(sd/-)
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE
jsr

True copy
PS to Judge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation