Kerala High Court
Usha Sudhakaran vs Sri. Chandran M.K
Author: S.S.Satheesachandran
Bench: S.S.Satheesachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/28TH BHADRA 1934
Crl.MC.No. 2709 of 2012 ()
--------------------------
CRMC.1555 of 2012 of DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
CRIME NO.1929 OF 2012 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S)/ADDL.RESPONDENT:
-------------
USHA SUDHAKARAN
W/O LATE SUDHAKARAN, MANCHAKATTIL HOUSE
THIRUVANKULAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682305
BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
SMT.SMITHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT:
---------------
1. SRI. CHANDRAN M.K., AGED 52 YEARS
MANCHAKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM P.O
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682305
2. SREEKALA,, AGED 40 YEARS
W/O CHANDRAN, MANCHAKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM P.O
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682305
3. RAKESH,, AGED 32 YEARS
S/O SYAMALA, MANCHAKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM P.O
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682305
4. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR
SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED, ADGP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01-08-2012 IN CRMC NO 1555 OF
2012
ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11-01-2011 ADDRESSED TO
THE SECRETARY, R.T.A. KOTTAYAM
ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM P.TEM.A. FOR
TEMPORARY PERMIT
ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM P.TEM.A. FOR
TEMPORARY PERMIT
ANNEXURE E: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 31
ANNEXURE F: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PAKKA PERMIT
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE REGIONAL/ STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
ANNEXURE G: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24-02-2012 ADDRESSED TO
RTO, KOTTAYAM BY SMT. KALYANI
ANNEXURE H: TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO 3663 OF 2012 IN OS NO 506 OF 2012
BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM
ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN W.P.(C).
NO.1581 OF 2012.
ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.46 OF 2012 OF CHOTTANIKKARA
POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE II: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.2.2012 IN CRL.M.C.NO.214 OF 2012 OF
SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE III: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.2.2012 IN C.M.P.NO.406/2012 AND
C.M.P.NO.520/2012 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,
KOLENCHERRY.
ANNEXURE IV: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER/DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.506/2012.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
Crl.M.C.NO.2709 OF 2012
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2012
O R D E R
Pre-arrest bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam vide Annexure-A order to respondents 1 to 3, who are proceeded against in a crime registered for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Central Police Station on the complaint of the petitioner, is challenged in the petition filed under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the 'Code'.
2. Series of forgery and fabrication of documents were committed by respondents 1 and 2 with the aid of the 3rd respondent to deprive the petitioner/complainant of her valuable assets, is the gist of the accusation made against those respondents, to proceed against them for the offences imputed. The aforesaid respondents moved for anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge apprehending their arrest by the Crl.M.C.No.2709/2012 2 police; and, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the Public prosecutor and the petitioner/de facto complainant, and also perusing the case diary and report submitted by the Investigating officer, passed Annexure-A order granting them pre-arrest bail imposing some conditions. That order is impeached as illegal, perverse and unsustainable seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner adverting to the facts and circumstances leading to the registration of the crime contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred seriously in exercising discretion in favour of the accused persons to grant them bail. Some of the observations made in Annexure-A order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are taken serious exception to by the counsel stating that those observations made while the investigation continued are inexcusable. In Annexure-A order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has expressed opinion that one among the offences imputed against the accused persons, on the facts presented, is doubtful, which, according to the counsel, would Crl.M.C.No.2709/2012 3 seriously affect continuation of a fair investigation of the crime.
3. After hearing the counsel on both sides and looking into Annexure-A order, I find, whatever observations/opinions made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are to be treated only as expressions made for deciding the relief canvassed for - anticipatory bail sought by the accused persons. Such observations are only to be treated as expressions made in the enquiry whether the discretionary relief canvassed of is to be granted or not, and it will have no decisive or binding force on the investigating agency nor in analysing the facts and circumstances involved in the case. Challenge canvassed to assail Annexure-A order as vitiated since the Additional Sessions Judge had made some observations over the case cannot be accepted. So far as the challenges raised on the facts involved in the case to contend that discretion has not been correctly and properly exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in passing Annexure-A order, I find, a meticulous scrutiny of the facts of the case is not called for nor is it proper. In Gurbaksh Crl.M.C.No.2709/2012 4 Singh Sibbia v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 1632), the Apex Court has held thus:
"The High Court and the Court of Session to whom the application for anticipatory bail is made ought to be left free in the exercise of their judicial discretion to grant bail if they consider it fit so to do on the particular facts and circumstances of the case and on such conditions as the case may warrant. Similarly, they must be left free to refuse bail if the circumstances of the case so warrant, on considerations similar to those mentioned in S.437 or which are generally considered to be relevant under S.439 of the Code."
In Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others ((2011) 1 SCC 694), the Apex Court has held that there is no requirement that the accused persons must make out a "special case" for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. Observation made by the Apex Court elucidating what has been stated above is of much significance. It has been observed thus:
"A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints and conditions on Crl.M.C.No.2709/2012 5 his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may deem fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail."
I find that in Annexure-A order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed adequate conditions safeguarding the investigation of the crime. The application moved for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondents 1 to 3 is found to be meritless, and the Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp