IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4122 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.487/10 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... (S): PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ SHABILAL @ AMBILI, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 27 YEARS, G.S.LALSONS BHAVAN, PUTHANKADA, KARUMANOOR DESOM, PARASSALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER SMT.M.JAYASREE RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4122 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 13th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b), 354 and 509 of 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 11.5.2010 at about 5 p.m., petitioner, along with four others, in furtherance of common intention, outraged the modesty of defacto complainant by pulling her hand etc. They also attempted to take her into the autorickshaw by force. They also uttered obscene words against her in public, with intend to insult her, and thereby committed the various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is an autorikshaw driver. Accused nos.2 to 5 hired his autorikshaw at about 10 a.m., on the date of occurrence. It appears that they passed some comments about defacto complainant and on the same day, defacto complainant's brothers and relatives made some enquiries in the locality and somebody mentioned that petitioner had acted in an undesirable manner to BA NO. 4122/10 2 the defacto complainant. 4. Therefore, on the same day, at about 8.30 p.m., some people came to petitioner's house and took him to a tea shop and brutally attacked him. According to petitioner, the co- accused had mentioned the petitioner's name deliberately with a view to exonerate them from their criminal liability. He went for Ayurvedic treatment and thereafter, on 15.5.2010, he made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police (Documents are produced in support of this contention). After five days, the F.I.R. is registered in the present case. This is done only as a retaliation to the complaint made by petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, it is submitted. Petitioner is in custody for the past 25 days, with effect from 25.6.2010. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that bail can be granted to petitioner on conditions. But, I make it clear that this order will not be a ground for granting bail to the co-accused. Hence, the following order is passed : Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned, on the BA NO. 4122/10 3 following conditions : (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. until further orders. (ii) Petitioner shall not enter the limits of the police station within which the offences are committed, except for compliance of condition no.(i) (iii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence. (iv) In case the petitioner is involved in any offence of similar nature, his bail is liable to be cancelled. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs