Kerala High Court
Babu P.A vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.8124 OF 2019
CRIME NO.1748/2019 OF Angamali Police Station , Ernakulam
PETITIONER/S:
BABU P.A., AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.ANTHONY PANADAN, PANADAN HOUSE, EZHATTUMUGHOM
P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.V.C.SARATH
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
SRI.K.SAJEESH KUMAR
SMT.POOJA PANKAJ
SRUTHY N. BHAT
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2 VICTIM
IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.11.2019 IN
CRL.MA NO.1/2019 IN BA-8124/2019.
R2 BY ADV. AMMU CHARLES
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SANTHOSH PETER PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
::2::
Bail Appl..No.8124 OF 2019
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------
B.A.No.8124 Of 2019
---------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of December, 2019.
ORDER
The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.1 among the 3 accused in the instant Crime No.1748/2019 of Angamaly Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.420, 354, 341, 506,323 & 34 of the I.P.C. The said Crime was so registered by the lady de facto complainant on 19.10.2019 at about 9.20 p.m. in respect of the alleged incidents happened for the period from 1.10.2011 to 2.10.2019. Pursuant to the private criminal complaint filed by the 2nd respondent-lady de facto complainant in which the learned Magistrate has directed the Police to register a crime and investigate into the crime alleged therein.
2. The prosecution case in short is that accused No.1 had misled her about his financial integrity and had borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from her in October, 2011 and had later did not repay the same despite various requests from her and accused No.1 is leading a luxurious life all throughout and owning very ::3::
Bail Appl..No.8124 OF 2019 many cars and other facilities. Further in January, 2019, the lady de facto complainant was locked up in a house and the accused persons threatened and intimidated her on account of the animosity in her repeated requests made to accused No.1 to repay the amount due to her. Further that accused No.1 had repaid only Rs.50,000/- and the balance amount has not been paid by him, etc.
3. Taking note of the nature of the facts disclosed, the lady de facto complainant had got herself impleaded as an additional party. On the previous occasion, the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the lady de facto complainant were heard in extenso. This Court had endeavoured to persuade the parties, more particularly, the petitioner herein to enter into a proper settlement of the issues regarding the financial transaction between them. This Court had so done, mainly taking into account the fact that the 2nd respondent-lady de facto complainant is said to be suffering from 50% physical disability. It is now reported that the lady de facto complainant has changed her lawyer and she sought for more time.
::4::
Bail Appl..No.8124 OF 2019
4. Having regard to the nature of the controversy in this case, this Court had earlier intimated to the learned Advocates concerned that if the issues are not immediately settled by the petitioner and if more detailed negotiation is required, then the matter could be relegated to the Sessions Court concerned so that the application of the petitioner under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C could be considered by that court with an option to ensure that mediation process of the disputed parties could also be duly taken.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out on the basis of instructions of his party that the petitioner has been advised to seriously pursue the option of mediatory efforts so that all outstanding disputes between the parties could be resolved. The learned Prosecutor has also welcomed the said suggestion made by this Court.
6. Since the matter was heard on previous occasion and even the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-lady de facto complainant was also heard, this Court feels that the matter could be relegated to the Sessions Court without any further delay and there is no necessity for this Court to hear and decide the anticipatory bail on merits and hence the case may be adjourned.
::5::
Bail Appl..No.8124 OF 2019
7. Accordingly, it is ordered that there is no necessity for this Court to consider the anticipatory bail pea of the petitioner on merits and the matter could be relegated to the Sessions Court concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will move an anticipatory bail application under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C before the Sessions Court within 2 weeks or so, and that this Court may pass necessary ad interim protective measures to ensure that the subject matter of the lis is preserved. The learned Prosecutor also does not have any serious objection to the said course of action.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered that it is for the petitioner to move an anticipatory bail application under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C before the Sessions Court concerned without much delay, preferably within a period of 2-3 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner would ensure that the 2nd respondent-lady de facto complainant herein should also be impleaded in the said proceedings as a party and the petitioner should take out notice to her. The Sessions Court will ensure that the lady de facto complainant herein is impleaded as a party in the said application and notice is also duly served on her. Thereafter, ::6::
Bail Appl..No.8124 OF 2019 the Sessions Court will ensure that the petitioner and the lady de facto complainant are referred to the District Mediation Centre, Ernakulam, in order to ensure that the parties seek option of mediatory efforts. If the mediation process is successful, then the parties concerned, more particularly, the petitioner may take recourse to further modalities in pursuance of such successful mediatory efforts. The mediation centre should ensure that the mediation process is concluded within 2 months from the date of first sitting and the mediator shall submit a report on the final outcome of the mediation process to the Sessions Court, who is dealing with the anticipatory bail plea. If on the other hand, the mediation process turns out to be failure, then the Sessions Court concerned will hear and decide the plea of the petitioner made in the anticipatory bail application on merits, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant. However, solely for the purpose of preservation of the subject matter of the lis, it is ordered that further coercive steps including the proposed arrest of the petitioner in the instant case shall be deferred by a further period ::7::
Bail Appl..No.8124 OF 2019 of 3 weeks. The said direction need not be understood as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter and the Sessions Court has to decide the matter independently. Further it is also ordered that in case the petitioner volunteers for mediatory efforts with all sincerity, then the Sessions Court may also pass necessary orders extending the abovesaid protective order until the conclusion of the mediation proceedings.
The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Sessions Court concerned for necessary information at the cost of the petitioner.
With these observations and directions, the above application will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.
bkn/-