Kerala High Court
Sunneesh Sidheek vs State Of Kerala on 18 November, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1941
BAIL APPL.NO.8239 OF 2019
CRIME NO.942/2019 OF VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER:
SUNNEESH SIDHEEK, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O. SIDHEEK @ SUBINA MANZIL, ELIPPAKULAM,
KATTANAM, VALLI KUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD,
SMT.M.N.ANITHA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------
B.A. No. 8239 of 2019
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.942/2019 of Vallikunnam Police Station, Alappuzha, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.376(2)(n), 420 & 506 of the IPC, on the basis of the FIS given by the lady defacto complainant on 21.9.2019 at about 2.25 pm, in respect of the alleged incidents which have happened for the period from 1.7.2019 to 31.7.2019.
2. The brief of the prosecution case is that, the petitioner aged 32 years is an unmarried man who was earlier working in a gulf country, and the lady defacto complainant is a married woman aged 30 years who is having a minor son and whose husband is working in the Indian Army in Assam. The petitioner/accused and the lady defacto complainant had developed friendship through social media like Facebook and that it turned out to be a love affair and the petitioner persuaded the lady to set up her cousin sister one "Bhagya" to develop intimate relationship with the lady defacto complainant's husband through B.A. No. 8239 /2019 ..3..
telephonic contact etc, so that her husband would develop interest in other woman and so that she could continue her affair with the petitioner. Thereupon, the lady had persuaded her cousin "Bhagya" to develop such intimate relationship through frequent telephonic calls with her husband. Thereafter, the petitioner accused and the lady defacto complainant continued their amorous and illicit relationship. Further, she would state in her FIS that she starts developing a deep love for the petitioner. That, some time in July, 2019, she went with the petitioner for a tour to Mysore. Later on a day when none was there in her house, the petitioner accused had came to the lady's house and both of them posed for selfie photographs in nude posture. The said nude photograph was taken in the mobile cell of the lady and later the petitioner had transferred the said nude photographs to his mobile, and he started threatening her for further sexual favours and money, and even started assaulting her. Later she came to know that the petitioner is a person who plays fraud in such cases and thereafter the petitioner compelled her to elope with him and should bring him dowry money and gold ornaments along with her. Later the lady settled the issues with her husband. At that time the petitioner B.A. No. 8239 /2019 ..4..
consistently threatened her that he would disclose the intimate photographs and other incidents to her husband, and made her part with Rs.50,000/- which he had not so far returned back. Further , the petitioner again threatened her that he would divulge the said nude photographs to her husband and she had no other alternative, but to make the abovesaid complaint by way of FIS before the Police, which has led to the registration of the instant crime. The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 22.9.2019 and after his remand, has been under detention since then.
3. Both sides would now submit that the investigation has been completed and the final report/charge sheet has been filed before the competent criminal court on 20.10.2019.
4. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that a close and intelligent reading of the FIS would make it clear like the day light that if the alleged incidents narrated therein are broadly true then the same would have happened only on the basis of consent between the parties and not otherwise and therefore the vital ingredients of rape as per Sec.376 of the IPC are not made out.
5. The learned Prosecutor would strongly urge that the B.A. No. 8239 /2019 ..5..
investigation has now revealed that even after the lady had settled issues with her husband the petitioner was consistently blackmailing and intimidating her that he would divulge the said incidents and nude photographs to her husband and further that, he had even forced her to part with Rs.50,000/- on the basis of said blackmail, and that at one point of time the lady was constrained to commit suicide by taking sleeping pills, etc, and that there is every possibility that the petitioner intimidating and influencing the witnesses more particularly the lady defacto complainant and her family members if he is let out on bail.
6. The counsel for the petitioner would further point out that as the investigation has been over, this Court may order to release him on regular bail subject to any stringent conditions.
7. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly taking into account the fact that the investigation has been completed, and as the petitioner has already suffered detention for the last 57 days, his further detention may not be necessary and he could be released on regular bail subject to stringent conditions. The abovesaid apprehension raised by the prosecution appears to B.A. No. 8239 /2019 ..6..
be real and substantial and as a safeguard it is ordered that the petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the district where the lady defacto complainant is residing until the conclusion of trial process in this case, subject to certain exceptions which will be dealt with hereinafter. Further it is ordered that the petitioner shall not have any contact either with the lady defacto complainant or her husband or any of her family members either directly in person or through any media of contact including mobile, telephone social media or through other persons. Further it is made clear that in case the Investigating Officer (I.O.) gets any such complaints that the petitioner has violated the conditions, either from the lady or her husband or any of her family members or other persons concerned, then the I.O. will immediately conduct an appropriate summary enquiry in that regard and will file a report before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner hereby and thereupon the said Court after hearing both sides will pass orders thereon without much delay.
8. Accordingly, in the interest of justice it is ordered that B.A. No. 8239 /2019 ..7..
the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on his furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, both to the satisfaction of the competent court below concerned. However the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions:-
i. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) on every 2nd and 4th Saturdays, at any time between 9 am and 1 pm for the next 10 months, and thereafter he will report before the I.O., as and when directed by the said Officer.
ii. The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the lady defacto complainant, witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
iii. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
iv. The petitioner shall not go anywhere near to the residence of the lady defacto complainant.
v. The petitioner shall not have any contact either with the lady defacto complainant or her husband or any of her family members either directly in person or through any media of contact including mobile, telephone social media or through other persons. In case the Investigating Officer (I.O.) gets any complaint that the petitioner has violated the conditions, either from the lady or her husband or any of her family members or other persons concerned, then the I.O. will immediately conduct an appropriate summary enquiry in that regard and will file a report before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner hereby and B.A. No. 8239 /2019 ..8..
thereupon the said Court after hearing both sides will pass orders without much delay.
vi. The petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the district where the lady defacto complainant and family is residing until the conclusion of trial, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer concerned in relation to this crime or any other crimes, or for attending to the Court in relation to this case or for contacting his lawyers/advocates concerned.
vii.However if on account of any emergent personal need the petitioner wants to visit the said area, it is for him to convince the necessity in that regard with the I.O. and he may visit said area for temporary purposes but only with the prior permission of the I.O.
If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioners then the jurisdictional court concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider the plea for cancellation of bail if required, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG