Kerala High Court
Ramshad vs State Of Kerala on 28 November, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
BAIL APPL.NO.8473 OF 2019
CRIME NO.512/2019 OF ALAKODE POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RAMSHAD, AGED 21 YEARS,
S/O.ANSARI, CHEPPILATT, NELLIKKUNNU P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682031.
2 S.H.O.,
ALAKKODE POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT- 670571.
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
----------------------------------------
B.A. No. 8473 of 2019
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of November, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.512/2019 of Alacode Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.341, 323, 324, 354, 427, 294(b) & 506(ii) of the IPC. The above crime has been registered on the basis of the FIS given bythe lady defacto complainant on 10.11.2019 at about 6.45 pm in respect of the alleged incidents which has happened on the previous day on 9.11.2019 at 10.30 am.
2. The prosecution case in short is that, one Ansari, who is the father of the petitioner accused (Anshad) is occupying a shop building owned bythe lady defacto complainant, and that on 9.11.2019 at about 10.30 am, when she had visited the said building, the petitioner had wrongfully restrained her and caught hold of her and beaten on her cheeks, and had kicked her and used obscene and offensive language to her and threatened that he B.A. No. 8473 /2019 ..3..
would kill her, and in the said scuffle she had lost Rs.10,000/-, and that the said acts have been done by the petitioner as the lady had demanded the petitioner's father to quit the building premises, etc.
3. The counsel for the petitioner could point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless, and that the truth of the matter is other way round, and that the lady defacto complainant has admitted in her FIS that the petitioner's father (Ansari) is occupying one of the shop rooms owned by her on lease basis, and there are landlord tenant disputes between them. Further that the lady was taking steps to get the petitioner's father evicted from the said shop room. He had approached the civil court by filing O.S. No. 405/2019 before the Munsiff Court, Thaliparamba, for injunction to restrain the defendant therein (the lady defacto complainant herein) for evicting the plaintiff therein (the petitioner's father) from the plaint schedule property, from interfering his peaceful possession and enjoyment and that the Munsiff Court, Thaliparamba, as per Anx.A2 judgment has decreed the said suit in favour of the petitioner's father, and it is only in retaliation thereof, the lady has made false allegations against the petitioner and to put pressure on his father to compromise in the B.A. No. 8473 /2019 ..4..
landlord tenant disputes pending between them. Accordingly it is urged that this Court may grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to any stringent conditions.
4. The learned Prosecutor has opposed the plea for anticipatory bail.
5. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking note of the pending landlord tenant disputes between the parties, and taking into account the nature of the allegations disclosed in this case, this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for the smooth and fair conduct of investigation in the above crime.
6. Accordingly it is ordered that in the event of the petitioner being arrested by police in connection with the abovesaid crime, he shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned. Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail will be subject to following conditions:-
B.A. No. 8473 /2019
..5..
i. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.
ii. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation. iii. The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when required in that connection. iv. The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever. If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.
With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG