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.7199 of 2014 (D) ------------------------------- CRMC18402014 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR CRIME NO.1682/2014 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION, TRISSUR PETITIONER(S)/SOLE ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- SIMON, AGED46YEARS S/O. CHAKUNNY, KAVATTY HOUSE, MAROTTICHAL DESOM MANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S)/STATE OF KERALA: ---------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE OLLUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT 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.7199 Of 2014 --------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2014. ORDER
Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1682/2014 of Ollur Police Station, Thrissur District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 506(i) and Section 11(i), 11(ii) and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Harassment Act, 2012. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had showered obscene words and gestures on the daughter of the defacto complainant and that he had exposed his nudity before daughter of the defacto complainant and such other allegations. The specific case of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated in this crime due to the false allegations made by the defacto complainant herein. The petitioner and the defacto complainant were neighbours. The wife of the petitioner herein had submitted a complaint dated 2.8.2014 against the husband of the defacto complainant herein alleging mis-behaviour as evident from Annexure-1 and also Annexure-II complaint dated 11.8.2014 of the subsequent mis- behaviour of the defacto complainant's husband against the petitioner's wife and this is evidenced by Annexure-III receipt. Still further, Annexure-IV petition dated 10.8.2014 was also ::2:: B.A No.7199 Of 2014 given by the co-operative society consisting of ladies in the locality alleging mis-behaviour against the defacto complainant's husband. Petitioner's wife's name was also in the aforementioned annexure. It is only on account of this inimical relationship, the defacto complainant had given the present petition to the police on 15.8.2014 alleging the aforementioned offences in order to implicate the petitioner in such offences so as to harass him.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that investigation is almost complete and in case this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail then the same should be conditioned with necessary safeguards so as to protect the interest of the prosecution.
3. It appears that there is lot of bad blood between the petitioner's family and defacto complainant's family, who are neighbours. This Court wanted instructions from the Public Prosecutor as to whether the petitioner and the defacto complainant are still living in the same neighbourhood. Sri.G.Sreekumar (Chelur), learned counsel for the petitioner had earlier submitted that the defacto complainant and her family shifted their residence from the neighbourhood of the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the ::3:: B.A No.7199 Of 2014 defacto complainant and her family had shifted their residence from the neighbourhood of the petitioner and now they are residing about 1.5 kilometers away. Instruction was sought for in this regard so as to ascertain the future possibility of disputes between the parties, that may arise.
4. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, this Court finds that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner subject to conditions. Accordingly it is ordered that in the event of the petitioner being arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for ` 35,000/- (Rupees Thirtyfive Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer concenred and subject to the following conditions:- i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below concerned within three days from execution of the bail bond before the investigating officer concerned and if he is not a holder of passport, then he shall file affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport in connection with his travel abroad, then he is free to approach the court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In ::4:: B.A No.7199 Of 2014 case if such an application is filed, the court concerned 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 condition imposed by this Court. (ii) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer concerned in Crime No.1682/2014 of Ollur Police Station between 10:00 am and 11:00 am on every alternate Sundays until the submission of the final report in this case. (iii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar or graver nature. (iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when required. (v) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever. If the petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions as ordered above, the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled. ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge. bkn/-