Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE29H DAY OF OCTOBER20137TH KARTHIKA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 7165 of 2013 () --------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1478/2013 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ......... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- 1. AFSAL, AGED30YEARS S/O. KHADAR, KINATTINKAL HOUSE, PUDUSSERY CHERUTHURUTHY P.O., THALAPPILLY TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2. SHANU, AGED32YEARS S/O. SUNI, PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, PUDUSSERY CHERUTHURUTHY P.O., THALAPPILLY TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.MANZOOR ALI RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2910-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7165 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October, 2013 ORDER
Petitioners are accused in Crime No. 1478 of 2013 of Ottappalam Police Station who are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420. 376D read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the first accused is running a chitty business and the second accused is an Autorikshaw driver by profession. The defacto complainant's husband is working abroad. Realizing that the defacto complainant was in financial difficulty, the first accused is alleged to have offered to join a chitty and to ensure that the bid falls in favour at the first instance to the defacto complainant or if it does not happen, he would manage to arrange the person who succeed in the bid to hand over the money to her. On 15.01.2013, it is alleged that she was informed by the first accused that the person B.A. No.7165/2013 -2- who was successful in the bid has agreed to hand over the money to her and she could come and receive it. It is also stated further that the autorikshaw of the second accused was being sent to fetch her. According to the defacto complainant, as the second accused was very familiar to her and also that since she, very often used to hire his autorikshaw, she suspected nothing in their conduct. She mounted the autorikshaw and she was taken to a lonely place where she was given a drink which made her unconscious. The further allegation is that when she regained conscious, she found that she was being raped brutally by the accused persons.
3. Petitioners deny allegations against them and pointed out that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. It is pointed out by them that the complaint is lodged after a long time and that by itself shows the hollowness of the case put forward by the defacto complainant. It is also stated that they have not B.A. No.7165/2013 -3- committed any act as alleged. They seek pre-arrest bail.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the offences are of grave nature and the matter needs to be viewed seriously. It is also pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, there seems to be some justification in the grievance voiced by the petitioners. The crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint which was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 15.01.2013. The private complaint is seen to have been laid on 04.10.2013. The explanation offered for the delay does not appear to be very convincing, though in such cases, delay is viewed liberally. This Court had occasion to go through the CD and after having perused the CD, it appears that the grievance of the petitioners may have weight. It may not be B.A. No.7165/2013 -4- appropriate at this stage to refer to the various findings of the Investigating Officer as could be discerned from the CD. After having bestowed attention to various aspects, it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. The petition is allowed as follows:
1. Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 05.11.2013, who, after interrogation, shall produce them before the JFCM court concerned, which court, on an application for bail being moved by the petitioners shall release them on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of ` 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court. 2) The court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail. 3) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9.00 am and 10.00 am until further orders. 4) Petitioners shall produce their original passport B.A. No.7165/2013 -5- before the court concerned. If they are not having any valid passport, they should file an affidavit regarding the same before the court concerned. 5) Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses. 6) Petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission of the court concerned. 7) If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioners shall stand cancelled and the court concerned may take such steps as are available to it in accordance with law. P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds