Kerala High Court
Lt.Col.Prenji Anand vs The State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.7744 OF 2019
CRIME NO.779/2019 OF Neyyattinkara Police Station ,
Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
LT.COL.PRENJI ANAND,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.JOHNY MOSSES, HQ-118 INFANTRY BRIGADE GP., PIN -
908 118, C/O.56 APO, LEAH, JAMMU AND KASHMIR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
SMT.M.BINDUDAS
SRI.K.C.HARISH
RESPONDENT/STATE:
THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.7744/2019 2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A.No.7744 of 2019
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of November, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.779/2019 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Sections 354 of the IPC, Sections 7, 8, 9b(iii) (1) (m) and (n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The above said crime has been registered on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the minor victim girl, aged 8 years on 1.6.2019 at about 7 p.m. in respect of the alleged incident which happened for the period from 1.2.2019 to 28.2.2019.
2. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner is the step father of the minor victim girl, aged 8 years and that the petitioner, his wife and the minor victim girl and her brother are residing together and that on a day in February, 2019, the petitioner had approached her and had pressed her private parts, buttocks and breast and that he had repeated it on various other occasions and thus he has committed the above said offences etc. B.A.No.7744/2019 3
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the above said allegations are absolutely false and baseless and has been created at the instance of the victim girl's mother, who is the petitioner's wife, only to victimize the petitioner, in view of the serious marital discord between them. Further that the victim girl is born to her mother in her first husband (victim girl's father, who is no more) and the petitioner had married the victim's mother later and they have a son in that wedlock. That the petitioner, his wife, the victim girl and the boy child were living together in different army stations, where he was posted as an officer of the Army. That the matrimonial relationship got very strained on account of the conduct of the victim's mother. Further that her first husband had died by drowning on suspicious circumstances, when the marital relationship had got ruptured. That the victim used to be severely manhandled by her mother and the petitioner had given all protection by stepping into the shoe as the father of the child. The lady had made various complaints before the Army officers and their wives and before the Family Welfare Organisation which were all futile. Later, the lady left matrimonial home on 10.4.2019 and had triggered a spate of litigations between them. Further that the lady had barged into the family house of the petitioner, where her aged mother alone resides in Kerala on the strength of a residence B.A.No.7744/2019 4 order issued under the Domestic Violence Act. The said order passed under the D.V. Act, was later vacated by the learned Magistrate and the lady (victim's mother) was directed to move out of the parental house of the petitioner. That the impugned crime has been got registered by the victim's mother by tutoring and pressurizing the victim girl so as to settle scores of personal vendetta with the petitioner etc. Further it is pointed out that the alleged incident is said to have happened some time on 1.2.2019 whereas the instant F.I.S and the crime has been lodged as late as on 1.6.2019 and prosecution has not even given any explanation whatsoever to even remotely explain the long delay in the registration of the case and the said long and unexplained delay would vitiate the entire criminal proceedings as it affects the very credibility and believability of the prosecution case. Accordingly, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court may grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the plea for anticipatory bail and has pointed out that the allegations disclosed in this case are serious. Further, the learned Public Prosecutor would point out that there is strong possibility of the petitioner influencing and intimidating the witnesses more particularly, the minor victim girl, if he is let off on bail.
B.A.No.7744/2019 5
5. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly, taking into account the long and unexplained delay in the lodging of the instant case etc., this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not really be warranted or necessary for effectuating fair and smooth conduct of the investigation in this crime. However, in order to address the above said apprehension raised by the prosecution, it is proposed to order as a safeguard that the petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station, where the minor victim girl is residing until the completion of the trial process. It is pointed out that the victim girl's mother and the victim are now separated from the petitioner and they are residing now in Kollam whereas the petitioner as per his army assignment is now based in the Jammu & Kashmir and his permanent residence is in Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram District.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that as the petitioner as per his army assignment is now based in the Jammu & Kashmir, he will have to immediately come down to Kerala and co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the interrogation process. Accordingly, the following directions and B.A.No.7744/2019 6 orders are passed:
1) The petitioner will immediately personally appear before the Investigating Officer in relation to the above said crime for interrogation purposes without any further delay, at any rate, by 10 a.m. on any day on or before 30.11.2019 or within such time limit that may be extended by the Investigating Officer as he deems fit and proper.
2) The petitioner will fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the above interrogation process.
3) After the interrogation process is over, if the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioner in relation to the above said crime, then he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) and on his furnishing two solvent sureties each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned. However, the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions:
(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.
(v) The petitioner shall not visit or go anywhere near to the residence or educational institution of the minor victim girl
(v) The petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station where the minor victim girl is residing until the conclusion of B.A.No.7744/2019 7 the investigation process in this crime, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer in this case or in any other crimes and for attending to the courts in connection with this case or any other cases or for contacting his advocate/lawyer, etc.
(v) However, if there is any emergent personal need to visit the said area, then the petitioner may do, only after getting permission of the investigating officer.
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 stands disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
acd