DATED : 25.08.2023
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Crl.O.P. No.15969 of 2023
Introduction:
The case of K. Sampath v. The District Collector revolves around a second bail application filed by the petitioner, K. Sampath, under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Crime No.8 of 2023 registered on the file of the respondent police. The petitioner is accused of offences under Sections 376, 511, 447, and 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case analysis delves into the court’s evaluation of the petitioner’s plea for bail and the factors considered in arriving at the decision.
Background:
The petitioner, K. Sampath, was arrested on May 9, 2023, and remanded to judicial custody in connection with a case involving charges of attempted rape, assault, and outraging the modesty of a woman. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner trespassed into the victim’s house, attempted to rape her, and inflicted injuries on her. The petitioner’s first bail application, filed in Crl.O.P.No.13127 of 2023, had been dismissed on June 22, 2023.
Court Proceedings:
The petitioner’s counsel contended that this was the second bail application after the first one had been rejected. The petitioner argued that he had been in custody since May 9, 2023, and that the investigation had been completed, with a final report filed. The case had been committed to the trial court for further proceedings. The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that the petitioner needed to engage a lawyer and conduct his defense. The petitioner’s affidavit expressed his commitment to abide by any stringent conditions imposed by the court.
Issues Raised:
The primary issue before the court was whether the petitioner should be granted bail given the nature of the charges against him, the completion of the investigation, and the fact that the case was pending trial. The court needed to assess the balance between the petitioner’s right to seek bail and the potential risks associated with releasing him.
Court’s Analysis and Decision:
Justice C.V. Karthikeyan examined the petitioner’s contentions and the opposing arguments presented by both sides. The judge acknowledged that the petitioner had already spent a considerable period in custody and that the investigation had been concluded. Taking these factors into account, along with the petitioner’s age, the court leaned towards granting bail.
The judge imposed several conditions on the petitioner’s release, including executing a bond of Rs.15,000, providing two sureties, reporting to the trial court on all working days, and not entering the jurisdictional limits of the respondent police station. The court also emphasized that the petitioner should not commit any offences of a similar nature, abscond during investigation or trial, or tamper with evidence or witnesses. The judge invoked the Supreme Court’s precedent in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala to assert that if the petitioner breaches any of the conditions, appropriate legal action could be taken.
Conclusion:
The case of K. Sampath v. The District Collector illustrates the court’s balancing act between individual rights and public interest. The court’s decision to grant bail to the petitioner, considering factors such as the time spent in custody, the completion of the investigation, and the commitment to abide by conditions, reflects the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice. The case underscores the significance of weighing the petitioner’s rights against the potential risks, thus ensuring a fair legal process while safeguarding society’s interests.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreeya S Shekar
