Kerala High Court
Shyju vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2014
Author: V.K.Mohanan
Bench: V.K.Mohanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/6TH BHADRA, 1936
Bail Appl..No. 6362 of 2014
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 734/2014 OF OONNUKAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
...
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:
---------------------------------------------------
1. SHYJU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.NEERAKANDAN,
PAVAKKAL HOUSE, NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. RAJAPPAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.PALLI,
PALAKOTTIL HOUSE, NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3. SHINU, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE,
KURIKOOR HOUSE, NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4. SHAJITH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SATHYAN,
NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PUTHENCRUZ,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
ADVS. SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH
SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
---------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R.REMA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
MBR/
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------
B.A.No.6362 of 2014
-------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of August, 2014.
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.734/14 of Oonukal Police Station and as they are apprehending arrest in the above crime, they preferred this bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.
2. The prosecution allegation is that on 28.7.2014 at about 7.15 p.m., the petitioners after having trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, the 1st petitioner caught hold of the neck of the wife of the de facto complainant and he had torn the Churidhar worn by her and tried to outrage her modesty. It is the further allegation that when the de facto complainant came to rescue his wife, petitioner nos.2 to 4 wrongfully restrained him and uttered obscene words and assaulted him. It is B.A.No.6362 of 2014 2 also alleged that they have destroyed the glass of the window and thereby caused loss to the de facto complainant. Thus the accused had committed the offences punishable under sections 452, 354, 341, 327, 294(b), 427 and 34 of IPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that actually there was a dispute between the sister of the 1st petitioner and the de facto complainant and the petitioners approached the de facto complainant to settle the matter and requested him to divert the drainage which is creating nuisance to the sister of the 1st petitioner. When the petitioners approached the de facto complainant, the petitioners were attacked by them and the sister of the 1st petitioner sustained injuries, based on which Crime No.734/14 was registered in Oonukal Police Station against the de facto complainant and his brother. So, according to B.A.No.6362 of 2014 3 the learned counsel, the present crime is baseless and registered with a view to harass the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted that it was the 1st petitioner who caught hold of the neck of the lady/the wife of the de facto complainant and he torn the churidhar worn by the wife of the de facto complainant. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioner nos.2 to 4 wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and they uttered obscene words and assaulted him.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. Even if the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners are admitted as correct for the sake of argument, the petitioners are not expected to take law into their hands. If the allegations are taken as true, the 1st petitioner, who approached the de facto complainant and his wife connected with the above referred dispute, B.A.No.6362 of 2014 4 caught hold on the neck of the wife of the de facto complainant and torn her churidhar. The above overtact of the 1st petitioner cannot be justified. As per the prosecution allegation, the prosecution has no case that petitioner nos.2 to 4 have used any weapon, but the allegation is that they restrained the de facto complainant and uttered obscene words. Therefore, considering the overall situation, according to me, the 1st petitioner is not entitled to get bail, whereas this petition can be allowed in favour of petitioner nos.2 to 4.
In the result, as far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, this petition stands dismissed, whereas petitioner nos.2 to 4 are granted anticipatory bail and accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of arrest of petitioner nos.2 to 4, connected with Crime No.734/14 of Oonukal Police Station, they shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the B.A.No.6362 of 2014 5 Investigating Officer in the above crime and on the following other conditions :
1. The petitioner nos.2 to 4 are directed to report before the Investigating Officer in the above Crime between 10 and 11 a.m. on Sundays once in a fortnight.
2. The petitioner nos.2 to 4 are directed to surrender their Passports before the Investigating Officer at the time of execution of bond and if they are not having the Passport, file an affidavit to that effect and the Investigating Officer is directed to produce the Passports, if they are having the same, or the affidavit as afore mentioned, as the case may be, before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner nos.2 to 4 are free to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for the release of the Passports as and when required and in case of an application is filed in this regard, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the same on merit and pass appropriate orders, guided by the decision rendered by this Court in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 712).
3. The petitioner nos.2 to 4 shall co-operate with the investigation and they shall not interfere with the same or attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper the evidence.
Sd/-
V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.
ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge