Justice Ziyad Rahman AA, taking into account that the accused had been in judicial custody since April 12, granted bail to the two men. The Kerala High Court recently made this decision regarding the individuals who were accused of restraining and assaulting a female advocate commissioner during a local inspection she was conducting on the orders of a munsif court.
After considering various factors, including the defendants’ prolonged judicial custody since April 12, the court decided to grant them bail on the condition that they do not influence the witnesses. The court’s order stated that further incarceration of the accused seemed unnecessary given their previous detention and the stage of the investigation.
The charges against the two individuals include Sections 294(b) (obscene acts and songs), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public person from discharging duty), 324 (voluntarily hurt by dangerous weapons), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), and 506(i) (criminal intimidation), read with Section 34 (common intention), of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, both defendants unlawfully restrained the advocate commissioner during her local inspection, which was conducted based on a munsiff court order. It is alleged that they assaulted not only the advocate commissioner but also an advocate clerk and the de facto complainant, causing severe injuries to the latter. As a result, a case was filed, leading to the arrest and subsequent judicial custody of both suspects on April 12.
The defense attorney argued for the innocence of the defendants, claiming that they were falsely implicated due to civil disputes between the parties involved. Additionally, the defense highlighted the extended period of detention since April 12 as a reason to release the accused.
On the other hand, the public prosecutor emphasized the serious nature of the allegations against the defendants, and during the course of the investigation, an offense under Section 326 was added due to the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant.
Considering the defendants’ prolonged judicial custody, the court accepted the arguments put forth by the defense attorney and granted bail to both accused individuals under certain conditions.
