SANTHOSH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.822/2019 of Mavelikkara Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that on 24.04.2019 at 10 p.m., the accused with an intention to cause hurt and committing theft of gold chain worn by the defacto complainant, followed the defacto complainant in a scooter bearing Reg. No.KL-31-E-4454 and when the defaco complainant and her husband reached near Kochikkal junction near Kattuvalli temple in a scooter, the accused attempted to snatch away the gold chain worn by the defacto complainant and touched on her right hand and pulled her. On account of the said act, the defacto complainant and her husband fell down and sustained injuries. It is further alleged that the accused has outraged her modesty. Thus the accused is alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 354 and 294 of the Indian Pendal Code.

(2.) It appears that the present regular bail application is the fifth one made by the petitioner in the instant crime before this Court and the previous four applications for regular bail have been rejected by this Court as per Annexures-A2 to A5 orders. The petitioner was also involved in two other crimes of broadly similar nature as per Crime Nos.632/2019 and 851/2019 both of Mavelikkara Police Station and since the present offence as per Section 354 of IPC is absent in those crimes, the statutory default bail period of 60 days in relation to those crimes were over and the petitioner was given liberty to move jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned for the relief of statutory default bail. However, it is not known to the petitioner's counsel as to whether the petitioner has already secured formal orders granting him the benefit of statutory default bail in those two crimes.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently urged that the petitioner in this case has already suffered detention since 14.5.2019, i.e., for the last 85 days. It appears that the statutory default bail for the offence in the present case is 90 days from the date of remand. It also appears that the investigation has not so far been entirely completed. Therefore, it is quite likely that the petitioner might secure the benefit of statutory default bail even otherwise. Considering all these facts, this Court is inclined to grant him the benefit of the regular bail subject to stringent conditions.