Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE23D DAY OF JULY20141ST SRAVANA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 1653 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 56/2014 OF MUHAMMA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT ----------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------------------- VIMAL VIJAYAN,AGED29YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAPPAN, PANDARAPATTATHIL, MUHAMMA P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS.SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.MANU GOVIND SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, MUHAMMA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA .PIN-682 031 *ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED *R2: NIMMI NAMBIAR, AGED25YEARS, D/O.A.K.SAKHIYAMMA, KUNNE VELI, MUHAMMA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. *ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED1903/2014 IN CRL.M.A.NO.2221/2014 IN BA.NO.1653/2014. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2307-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V.K.MOHANAN, J =========================== B.A No.1653 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2014 ORDER
Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 56/2014 of Muhamma Police Station wherein the offences alleged are punishable under Sections 294(b), 509, 420, 354 of Indian Penal Code and Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act and he seeks anticipatory bail in the above crime under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Prosecution allegation is that the de facto complainant was enticed by the petitioner/accused and they were in love and, finally, they married on 19.02.2010 and thereafter difference of opinion occurred among them which led to matrimonial dispute. According to the de facto complainant, after the marriage, on various occasions, the accused fraudulently obtained a sum of `4,10,000/- when the marital relationship between the de facto B.A No.1653/2014 2 complainant and the accused was continuing. It is also the allegation that because of the family dispute the petitioner herein moved a petition for divorce in the Family Court, Alappuzha on 20.06.2011, which was allowed by order dated 30.05.2013 in O.P (HMA) No.747/2011. It is the further allegation of the de facto complainant that even after Annexure A1 order, petitioner threatened her and by blackmailing an amount of `.8,000/- was obtained from her on 14.09.2013 and, finally, the de facto complainant was constrained to approach the police by giving information to them on 23.01.2014 on the basis of which the above crime was registered. Thus, according to the de facto complainant, altogether `4,50,000/- is due from the accused/petitioner. According to the de facto complainant, the petitioner, by cheating, the de facto complainant obtained `4,50,000/- from her. B.A No.1653/2014 3 3. It appears from the case records that on the basis of the direction issued by this court the de facto complainant is impleaded in the present bail application and the parties were sent for mediation in the Kerala Mediation Centre at High Court but all such attempts were failed. Thereafter, the present petition came up for consideration.
4. Heard Adv.Sri. Manuvilsan learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv.Sri.S.Sanal Kumar, learned counsel for R2 and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. In the light of the above allegations, it can be seen that the amount which due as per the allegation of the complainant was parted and allegedly obtained by the petitioner/accused while the marital relationship between the petitioner and de facto complainant was existing. As I indicated earlier, at present the de facto complainant is the divorced wife of the petitioner. On the B.A No.1653/2014 4 basis of the direction of this court, though the parties were sent for mediation no settlement was arrived at. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner approached the police for the first time only on 23.01.2014 and she never raised any complaint before any statutory forum or the police authorities prior to 23.01.2014 and she had not made any complaint even on 14.09.2013 on which date it is alleged that the petitioner/accused, by threat and coercion, obtained a sum of `8,000/-.
6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the whole issue and proceedings are arise out of family dispute and, therefore, it is not proper to deny anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The proceedings in the crime which registered at the instance of the de facto complainant cannot be used as a weapon in the fight between the divorced husband and wife. B.A No.1653/2014 5 In the result, this petition is allowed, and, accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of petitioner in Crime No.56/2014 of Muhamma Police Station, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for like amount, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the above crime and on the following further conditions: i) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer once in every fortnight on Tuesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m. ii) Petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation. iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and try to influence any witness. Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv