Kerala High Court
Mohanan vs The S.I. Of Police
Author: P. Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/6TH ASWINA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 5229 of 2012 (C)
------------------------------
CRIME NO.289/2012 OF KATTAKADA POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
-------------------
MOHANAN, AGED 49 YEARS,
S/O. VASUDEVAN, RAJASREE, VALIYAVILA,
POOVACHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.MOHANAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------
1. THE S.I. OF POLICE,
KATTAKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.
* ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED
2. A.S.BALACHANDRAN NAIT, AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O.APPUKUTTAN NAIR, SREE SAROJA,
KOVIL VILLA MACHAYIL, MALAYANINKIL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
(ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25/07/12 IN CRL.M.A.
5057/12 IN BA.NO.5229/12)
BY SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADDL.2 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
AS
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No. 5229 of 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2012.
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 289 of 2012 of Kattakada Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 468 and 419 I.P.C.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that while he acted as the Clerk of the defacto complainant, he forged the signature of the defacto complainant with whom he was worked, and got a vehicle released without his knowledge. Petitioner says that the allegations are totally false and have been cooked up for the purpose of initiating action against him. Even though the incident is said to have taken place on 15.10.2011, the complaint which gave rise to the crime was filed only in 2012. According to the petitioner, the delay in filing the complaint is sufficient to show the hollowness of the complaint.
B.A.5229/2012. 2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that going by the allegations in the complaint, no offence is made out. It is also pointed out that the complaint is totally false and the petitioner is unnecessarily being harassed. He therefore, seeks indulgence of this court.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor initially suggested that there can be a mediation and the matter be tried to be settled. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that a special team has been constituted to conduct the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner was very adamant in his stand that unless there is an interim order, his client is not willing to go for mediation.
5. The defacto complainant was also represented by a counsel, who pointed out that the various activities committed by the petitioner including the attack on the defacto complainant, in respect of which another crime was registered against the petitioner as Crime No. 109 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 308, 326, 324 and 341 I.P.C. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for B.A.5229/2012. 3 the defacto complainant that in Crime No.109 of 2012 the petitioner has moved an application for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by this court. It is pointed out that the matter is indeed serious and that the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy.
6. As to the veracity of the allegations and the probative value of the materials produced before this court do not arise for consideration at this point of time. The defacto complainant has given sufficient reasons for the belated filing of the complaint. He had filed complaints before the Bar Association regarding the conduct of the petitioner and before the District Court for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner, pursuant to which the District Court cancelled the registration of the petitioner. The attack on the defacto complainant by the petitioner was on 4.2.2012, which resulted in registration of Crime No.109 of 2012 against the petitioner. Soon thereafter the present complaint has been filed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there is delay in the filing of B.A.5229/2012. 4 the complainant taking note of the various steps taken by the defacto complainant including the steps taken for cancellation of the registration of the petitioner as Advocate Clerk. Whatever that be, the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature and required a deep probe.
7. In fact, the petitioner had approached the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking the very same relief by filing Crl.M.C. 1292 of 2012. The said court after taking note of the various circumstances and also the allegations against the petitioner was of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary and declined to grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to take a different view from the view taken by the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram especially in view of the allegations against the petitioner and his subsequent conduct. It is felt that this is not a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
B.A.5229/2012. 5
This application is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.