Kerala High Court
Shaji Joseph vs The Station House Officer on 20 November, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.7895 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1622/2019 DATED 17-10-2019 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY
CRIME NO.464/2019 OF Alakode Police Station , Kannur
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SHAJI JOSEPH
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, PATHIYANIKKAL HOUSE P.O. CHITTADI,
ALAKKODE IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ALAKKODE POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, 670 571.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.7895 OF 2019 2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A. No. 7895 of 2019
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.464/2019 of Alacode Police Station, Kannur District which has been registered for the offences punishable under Secs. 451, 354C, 354A(1)(i)(ii) and 506(i) of the IPC. The abovesaid crime has been registered on the basis of the FI statement given by the lady defacto complainant on 08.10.2019 at 6.15 p.m. in respect of the alleged incident which happened 1 week prior thereto.
2. The brief of the prosecution case is that the petitioner/accused aged 53 years is living in the immediate neighbourhood of the lady defacto complainant aged 47 years, who is a married woman and who is living there with her mother-in-law and that about 1 week prior to the submission of the FI statement dated 08.10.2019, the petitioner/accused had peeped through the window/ventilator of the bathroom in her house, where she was then taking bath and had caught hold of her body by inserting his hand though the window/ventilator and thus outraged her modesty. When she screamed aloud, the petitioner had fled away.
3. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless. Further that, the petitioner is Bail Appl..No.7895 OF 2019 3 an ex-service man, who had served the Indian Army and is now employed as a home guard at Cherupuzha Police Station and that the lady victim's house is on the northern boundary of the petitioner's property and certain people used to walk through the northern boundary of petitioner's property even during late hours and the petitioner had objected to it and that certain people used to frequently come over to the northern boundary of the petitioner's property by the western side of the lady defacto complainant's house through her connivance. The petitioner informed her to stop allowing such people to do so, or otherwise he will be constrained to inform about it to her husband, who is at Chennai. Then she had became furious and the abovesaid false complaint has been made. Further that, the perusal of the scene mahazar would clearly show that the bathroom is having a ventilator, which is very high and it is almost difficult for anyone to introduce the hand through the ventilator and touch the body of any person, who is inside the bathroom and that the said aspect itself would clearly show the falsity of the case. The counsel for the petitioner would urge that this Court may grant anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions.
4. The learned Prosecutor has opposed the plea for anticipatory bail and also pointed out that as the petitioner was living in the immediate neighbourhood of the lady defacto complainant's residence, there is every possibility of the petitioner intimidating or influencing the witnesses, including the lady defacto complainant, if he is let out on bail. Further that, Bail Appl..No.7895 OF 2019 4 there is a delay of more than 7-8 days in lodging the instant FIS and the crime after the alleged incident and the delay in this regard is unexplained and this would also clearly vitiate the impugned criminal proceedings.
5. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of this case, more particularly, taking into account of the long and unexplained delay in the lodging of the case and also taking note of some of the aspects borne out from the scene mahazar in relation to this case etc., this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not really warranted for effectuating the smooth and fair conduct of the investigation of this case. However, taking note of the abovesaid serious apprehension raised by the prosecution, it is ordered as a safeguard that the petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station, where the lady defacto complainant is residing, until the completion of the investigation process in this case, subject to certain exceptions, which should be dealt with hereinafter. Accordingly, the following orders and directions are passed :-
(i) The petitioner shall personally appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.), in relation to Crime No.464/2019 of Alacode Police Station and to subject himself for interrogation process without any further delay at any rate by 10 a.m. on any day on or before 11.12.2019 or within such time limit that may be extended by the IO as he deems fit and proper.
(ii) The petitioner will fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the interrogation process.
Bail Appl..No.7895 OF 2019 5
(iii) After the interrogation process is over, in case the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioner in relation to the abovesaid crime, then he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum both to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.
6. However, in that eventuality, the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions:
(1) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature. (2) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation. (3) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection.
(4) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.
(5) The petitioner shall not reside or enter into the territorial limits of the Police Station where the lady defacto complainant is residing until the conclusion of the investigation process, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer concerned in this crime, or for attending to the Court in relation to this case or any other cases or for contacting his lawyer/advocate concerned. However, if the petitioner has any emergent need to visit the said area, he may do so, but only with the prior permission of the investigating officer concerned. (6) If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned will 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 SKS