Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE13H DAY OF OCTOBER201421ST ASWINA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 7247 of 2014 () ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
/JUDGMENT
IN OS4962011 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR DATED2606-2013 AGAINST THE ORDER
/JUDGMENT
IN CRMP28052014 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD DATED1809-2014 CRIME NO. 911/2014 OF PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED : -------------------------------------------- 1. IBRAHIM SHA AGED35YEARS S/O. A.S.YOUSUF, ALIMITHEEN HOUSE, SOUTH STREET PUDUNAGARAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. ABDUTTY @ ABDULKHADER AGED35YEARS S/O. ALIYAR, KALATHIL HOUSE, VELIKKAD MUNDUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY S.I. OF POLICE, PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION PALAKKAD DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1310-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
================== B.A.No. 7247 of 2014 ================== Dated this the 13th day of October, 2014 ORDER
The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Crime No.911/2014 of Pudunagaram Police Station, Palakkad District, registered on 28.8.2014. The gist of allegations against the petitioners is that while the defacto complainant's son had locked the front door of the house and went away with his wife and while the defacto complainant was sitting on the varandah, at about 5 p.m., her daughter-in-law's brother and his brother-in-law, viz., the 2nd and the 1st petitioners respectively, had come to the place and showered abuse on her and caught hold of her hair and twisted her arm and caught hold of her sari and committed the aforementioned crime. It is the case of the petitioners that the above said complaint is borne out of malafides in as much as even going by the version projected in the first information lodged by the defacto complainant the dispute is between the relatives and that as per Annexure D judgment, the 1st petitioner had secured a decree B.A.7247/14 - :
2. :- of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining another son of the defacto complainant from trespassing into the 1st petitioner's property. It is stated that the above said plaint schedule property/house is the house in which the above said other son of the defacto complainant and defacto complainant are claiming rights and that in order to defeat the execution proceedings in respect of the aforementioned proceedings, the defacto complainant and their family members are foisting false criminal cases against the petitioners. The 2nd petitioner is said to be residing 40 kilometers away and is roped in only to frame a case against him. Accordingly, it is submitted by Sri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned counsel for the petitioners that the entire prosecution arises out of the previous enmity of the defacto complainant due to civil litigation, in which the 1st petitioner had succeeded and that this Court may grant anticipatory bail in this case.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and after taking evaluation of all the totally of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to exercise discretion to order anticipatory bail in favour of the B.A.7247/14 - :
3. :- petitioners. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the petitioners being arrested in connection with the above said crime, the petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond each for Rs. 35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the above crime and subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, days before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within 3 days from the execution of the bail bond before the Investigating Officer and if either of them are not holders of passports, then they shall file affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioners require their passports in connection with their travel abroad, then they are free to approach the court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case such an application is filed, the trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, is free to consider the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking necessary guidance from the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in the case Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala, reported in 2009 (2) KLT712 notwithstanding the aforementioned conditions imposed by this Court. B.A.7247/14 - :
4. :- (ii) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar nature. (iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when required. (iv) The petitioners shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever. If the petitioners violate any of the conditions as ordered above, then the bail granted to them are liable to be cancelled. With the above said directions, this Bail Application stands finally disposed of. Sd/- sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge