IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
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
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.RAJENDRAN, RESIDING AT MELETHAIKOOTTATHIL
VEEDU, IRUMBA, ARUVIKKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN- 695564.
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:
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
B.A.No.271 of 2020
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2020
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
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
6. In the result, the prayer for granting pre-arrest bail to
the petitioner is rejected and the petition is dismissed.
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE
PS to Judge