'Court Cannot Be Swayed By Public Outcry': Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To 3 KSRTC Employees In Assault Case

The Kerala High Court recently granted pre-arrest bail to the three Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) employees, who were booked in September for assaulting a man and his daughter for demanding renewal of a concession certificate for her.

The video of the incident had been leaked in the media, causing a public outcry against the incident. 

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in the order observed that the courts must strictly confine to the allegations and the statements given by the witnesses and their legal implications.

"Even though the video of the incident had been leaked through the media and had gone viral, creating a public outcry against the incident, this Court ought not and cannot be swayed by such sentiments," Justice Thomas said.

The court observed that limited custody of the petitioners for the purpose of interrogation will be sufficient for the purpose of proceeding with the investigation.

Therefore, on a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, I am of the view that even though the allegations are serious in nature, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail in the event of their arrest on conditions, since custodial interrogation is not required, Justice Thomas observed. 

The accused persons have been booked for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 341, 342, 323, 324 and 354, read with Section 34 IPC at the case registered at Kattakkada Police Station.

The prosecution case is that the petitioners, along with other accused, who are KSRTC employees, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly on September 20 and verbally abused and assaulted the complainant and this daughter, who had approached them to renew a concession certificate.

It was submitted that the offence under Section 354 IPC was added subsequently on the basis of the statement given by the daughter of the complainant alleging that the accused had outraged her modesty. 

The counsels appearing for the petitioners in the respective bail applications, Advocates Suman Chakravarthy and K. K. Dheerendrakrishnan, contended that the petitioners are innocent of the crime.

It was also submitted that due to public outrage based on a "distorted video and due to wrong media publicity", petitioners have been arrayed as accused, alleging non-bailable offences.

The counsel further contended that no overt acts have been alleged against the petitioners which would fall within the contours of Section 354 IPC and that the said Section has been incorporated with oblique motives.

Public Prosecutors Advocates Noushad K.A and M.K. Pushpalatha opposed the grating of bail, contending that the allegations are serious in nature. Pointing out that the video of the incident leaked out to the media had caused a public outrage over the incident, the PPs contended that releasing the petitioners on anticipatory bail would send a wrong message to the public. 

The Court said only non-bailable offence in the case relates to Section 354 IPC and the other remaining offences are admittedly bailable. 

It further said that even though what constitutes "an outrage to a woman's modesty" has not be defined, it has to be decided on the basis of the circumstances of each case; the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Major Singh has held that the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex and the crux of the offence lies in the culpable intention of the accused.

The complainant's daughter in the statement had submitted that in the push and pull that occurred during the incident, she felt pain over her body but asserted that none had hit her.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as revealed from the statement given by the complainant and his daughter and the legal principle laid down by the Apex Court and the High Court, the bench observed that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not essential.

Thereby, the Court allowed the applications for pre-arrest bail on the following conditions:

e) Petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while they were on bail.

f) Petitioners shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

The Court has further added that in case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail.

Case Title: Milan Dorich v. State of Kerala 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 589

Click Here To Read/Download The Order