Kerala High Court
Arun.S vs State Of Kerala on 25 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 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.7951 OF 2019
CRIME NO.2209/2019 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED:
ARUN.S,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O.SAJI.B., ARUN BAHAVAN,
MANGARAM, M.S.M.P.O., PANDALAM,
NOW RESIDING AT SHYAM VILAS,
PRAMADOM, MALLASSERY P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN- 689646.
BY ADVS.
SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD
SMT.M.N.ANITHA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM- 682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.11.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8190/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..Nos.7951 & 8190 OF 2019
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.8190 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 4847/2019 OF SESSIONS COURT,
PATHANAMTHITTA
CRIME NO.2209/2019 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
SATHEESH
AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. SURESH,
SUDHEESH BHAVAN, MALLASERRY P. O.,
PRAMADOM VILLAGE, KONNY TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA - 689646.
BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ
RESPONDENT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFIER
PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION,
PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645.
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.11.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..7951/2019, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..Nos.7951 & 8190 OF 2019
3
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
===========================
B.A Nos.7951 & 8190 of 2019
===========================
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2019
ORDER
The sole petitioner in B.A.No.7951/2019 and the sole petitioner in B.A.No.8190/2019 have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2 respectively among the 10 accused persons, who are alleged to be involved in the instant Crime No.2209/2019 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, which has initially been registered for offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 294(b), 506, 452 & 427 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the police after investigation has found that the earlier allegation that the accused persons had entered into the residential house of the de facto complainant are wrong and that they had only entered into the property and the offence as per Sec.452 of the IPC has been deleted and the offence as per Sec.447 of the IPC and Sec.354 of the IPC has been newly added.
2. The prosecution case in short as revealed from the FI Statement is that on 23.09.2019 a motorcycle had hit on the left leg Bail Appl..Nos.7951 & 8190 OF 2019 4 of the employee of the lady de facto complainant's husband and a wordy altercation had taken place between A-2 and the husband of the de facto complainant and due to that enmity, the accused persons on the same day (23.09.2019) in furtherance of their common object had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the intention to assault the de facto complainant and her husband at about 11 p.m. and had trespassed into the courtyard of the lady and assaulted her husband by using fist. When the lady de facto complainant intervened in the matter, A-1 had abused her and kicked her on her belly portion and A-2 had beaten her on her head using hand and thereby assaulted the lady de facto complainant. Further it is alleged that A-1 had broken the lady's gold chain and pulled down her. Further that the petitioner and the other accused persons pelted stones against the residential building of the de facto complainant and destroyed the screen window of her car and destroyed the transmitter computer of the cable network, which was being conducted by the de facto complainant's husband and sustained damage, etc.
3. The learned Advocates appearing for the applicants would urge that though the initial allegation was to the effect that the accused Bail Appl..Nos.7951 & 8190 OF 2019 5 persons had criminally trespassed into the courtyard of the lady de facto complainant and had assaulted them, etc. Now even the police after investigation has found that the said allegations are wrong and the non-bailable offence as per Sec.452 of the IPC has been deleted and the bailable offence as per Sec.447 of the IPC and the non-bailable offence as per Sec.354 of the IPC have been newly added. That since it was found that the earlier allegations are factually wrong, then it has be borne in mind that the probability of the accused persons committing other serious offence, if they have not actually entered the house of the de facto complainant is much lesser and the allegation that they had committed the offence as per Sec.354 of the IPC has been now newly made, only to implicate the petitioners in a non-bailable offence. Further that, all the accused persons belong to Scheduled Caste community and the de facto complainant's family members were under the bonafide apprehension that the petitioners might have complained against them, invoking the provisions in SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and it is for these reasons that they have now raised false allegations by newly adding offence as per Sec.354 of the IPC. It is also pointed out that A-1 is a Jawan of the CRPF, etc. Bail Appl..Nos.7951 & 8190 OF 2019 6
4. The learned Advocates appearing for the applicants would submit that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary and that this Court may order to grant them anticipatory bail, subject to any stringent conditions.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the plea for anticipatory bail.
6. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of this case and more particularly, taking into account the fact that the police themselves have now found that the earlier allegations regarding the non-bailable offence of Sec.454 of the IPC are factually not sustainable, etc., this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not really be necessary or warranted, for effectuating the smooth and proper conduct of the investigation of this crime. Hence, the following directions and orders are passed:
(i) The petitioners will immediately personally appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O) concerned, in relation to the abovesaid crime for interrogation purposes, without any further delay, at any rate by 9 a.m. on any day on or before 10.12.2019 or within such time limit that may be extended by the I.O as he deems fit and proper.
(ii) The petitioners will fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the interrogation process.
Bail Appl..Nos.7951 & 8190 OF 2019 7
(iii) After completing the above interrogation process, in case, the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioner in relation to the present case, then the petitioners shall be released on bail on their separately executing bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on their separately furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum each, both to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.
(iv) After the interrogation process is over, the Investigating Officer will be at liberty to give permission to accused No.1, who is said to be a Jawan of the CRPF to report to his place of work, which is said to be in Kashmir, if he has fully co-operated with the interrogation process.
(v) Accused No.2 will report before the Investigating Officer at any time between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. on every 2nd and 4th Saturdays for the next four months. Thereafter, A-2 shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by him.
(vi) The petitioners shall not visit or go anywhere near the residence of the de facto complainant.
(vii) The petitioners shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station, where the de facto complainant is residing until the conclusion of the investigation process, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer in connection with the abovesaid crime or any other crimes or for attending any courts in relation to this case or for contacting their Advocate.
(viii) However, in case, for emergent needs they may visit the said area, but only with the prior permission of the Investigating Officer.
8. If the petitioners violate any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court concerned will stand hereby empowered to Bail Appl..Nos.7951 & 8190 OF 2019 8 consider the application 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 vgd