Kerala High Court
Noushad.S vs State Of Kerala on 14 October, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 22ND ASWINA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.7057 OF 2019
Crime No.522/2019 of Aruvikkara Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram District
PETITIONER/S:
NOUSHAD.S., AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, NOUSHAD MANZIL,
ARUVIKKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ARUVIKKARA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 564
3 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 541
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
::2::
Bail Appl..No.7057 OF 2019
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------
B.A.No.7057 Of 2019
---------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2019.
ORDER
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in the instant Crime No.522/2019 of Aruvikkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.376(2)(f) & (n) of the I.P.C, on the basis of the FI statement given by the lady de facto complainant on 20.6.2019 at about 11:25 p.m., in respect of the alleged incidents happened on 17.6.2019 at 3:30 p.m. in the afternoon.
2. The prosecution case in short is that the lady de facto complainant, aged 26 years in this case, is the daughter of the sister of the petitioner herein, aged 47 years, and that earlier when she was studying in the 10th class, which is about more than 10 years before the submission of Anx-A1 FI statement dated 20.6.2019, the petitioner used to have sexual intercourse with her. Further that on 17.6.2019 at about 3:30 p.m., at a time when she was alone he had forcible sexual intercourse with her, etc.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the abovesaid allegations in Anx-A1 Crime are absolutely false and ::3::
Bail Appl..No.7057 OF 2019 fabricated and truth of the matter is otherwise. The petitioner's sister, who is the mother of the lady de facto complainant herein, is leading a morally loose life, which is causing public shame in that regard and the petitioner used to advise his sister to stop such immoral life and for that reason, the brother of the de facto complainant got enraged with that and assaulted the petitioner with an iron rod on 19.6.2019 at about 8:00 p.m. in the night by barging into his residence and he had attempted to commit culpable homicide and the petitioner has suffered serious injuries including fracture to the knee of the right leg and immediately thereafter he was admitted in the Medical College Hospital on 20.6.2019 and on the next day morning he had taken steps to register Anx-A2 Crime as Crime No.519/2019 of Aruvikkara Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.308, 324, 326, 427, 452, 506(ii) r/w Sec.34 of the I.P.C, on the basis of the FI statement given by him on 20.6.2019 at 10:25 a.m. in respect of the alleged incidents happened on the previous day (19.6.2019). In Anx-A2 Crime, the petitioner is the de facto complainant and the brother of the lady de facto complainant in Anx-A1 Crime is the accused therein. According to the petitioner, since he had proceeded ::4::
Bail Appl..No.7057 OF 2019 against the lady's brother and got Anx-A2 Crime registered, it is only to get over the allegations, her brother and mother have falsely made allegations which led to the registration of the instant Crime. Further it is also pointed out that one of the allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner had consistently raped her when she was studying in 10th standard and the long and unexplained delay in lodging the crime will go to the very root of the prosecution case as it affects the very credibility and believability of the prosecution version. Further that the abovesaid allegation that the petitioner had committed rape on her on 17.6.2019 at 3:30 p.m was made by her on 20.6.2019 at about 11:20 p.m as can be seen from Anx-A1 only as a counter blast to Anx-A2 Crime registered as against the lady's brother. Accordingly, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary and the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail subject to any stringent conditions.
4. The learned Prosecutor has seriously opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and as the petitioner is none other than the maternal uncle of the lady de facto complainant, there is strong possibility of the petitioner intimidating and influencing the ::5::
Bail Appl..No.7057 OF 2019 witnesses, including the lady victim, if he is let out on bail, etc.
5. After hearing both sides and on an evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the fact that there is a delay of 10 years in making some of the allegations in Anx-A1 FIS and also taking in to account the registration of Anx-A2 Crime in respect of the alleged incidents happened on 19.6.2019 in which the brother of the de facto complainant herein has been arrayed as accused, this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for effectuating smooth and effective conduct of the investigation. However, the abovesaid apprehension raised by the Prosecutor, could be redressed by passing necessary directions that the petitioner shall not reside within the territorial limits of the Police Station where the de facto complainant is residing until the completion of the investigation process subject to certain conditions, which are dealt with in the later part of this order. Accordingly, the following orders are passed:
(i) The petitioner shall personally appear before the Investigating Officer in relation to Crime No. 522/2019 of Aruvikkara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District at 9:00 a.m. on any day on or before 28.10.2019 to subject himself for interrogation purposes or within such other time that may be extended by the Investigating Officer concerned.
::6::
Bail Appl..No.7057 OF 2019
(ii) The petitioner will fully co-operate with the interrogation process.
(iii) After completing the above interrogation process, in case the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioner then he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned. Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail will be subject to following conditions:-
(a) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned on every 2 nd and 4th Saturdays, at any time between 09:00 a.m and 1:00 p.m, for a period of 3 months.
Thereafter the petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the said Officer.
(b) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.
(c) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.
(d) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.
(e) The petitioner shall not visit or go anywhere near to the residence of the lady de facto complainant until the conclusion of the investigation.
(f) The petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station where the lady de facto complainant is residing, until the completion of the investigation, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer in this case or in any other crimes and for attending to the court in connection with this case or any other cases or for contacting his lawyer, etc.
(g) The Investigating Officer will depute a Police Constable, preferably a woman Police Constable to the residence of the lady de facto complainant once in a month until the conclusion of the investigation to ascertain from her as to whether ::7::
Bail Appl..No.7057 OF 2019 the petitioner or men under him have in any manner threatening or intimidating her and after conducting such proper enquiry, if the Investigating officer finds anything adverse against the petitioner in that regard, then the Investigating Officer shall immediately deal with the matter in accordance with law.
(g) If the petitioner violates all or any of the bail conditions, then the jurisdictional court concerned will stand hereby authorised, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail, if required, in accordance with law.
With these observations and directions, the Bail Application stands disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.
bkn/-