Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS FRIDAY, THE31T DAYOF OCTOBER20149TH KARTHIKA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 7535 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 339/2014 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ........ PETITIONER/ACCUSED2& 3: ------------------------------------------- 1. RAVEENDRAN, S/O.APPU, AGED67YEARS, MUNDOLI, PUTHENCHIRA NORTH.
2. KOMALAM, W/O.RAVEENDRAN, AGED60YEARS, MUNDOLI, PUTHENCHIRA NORTH. BY ADVS.SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN, SRI.K.S.RAJESH. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLATHUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON3110-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
================== B.A.No. 7535 of 2014 ================== Dated this the 31st day of October, 2014 ORDER
The petitioners herein are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No. 339/2014 of Kolathur Police Station, Malappuram district, for offences registered under Sections 452, 341, 294(b) read with Section 34 of the IPC. The gist of the prosecution case is that the accused persons had trespassed into the house of the lady defacto complainant and wrongfully restrained and uttered abusive language against her. It is the submission of the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated by the defacto complainant. In this regard it is submitted that accused No.1 herein (son of 2nd and 3rd accused) had engaged the lady defacto complainant, who is a practising Advocate, for conduct of a matter in the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, as her name was recommended by her relatives and that the petitioners found that the professional services that have rendered by her were extremely deficient and that therefore they were constrained to submit a compliant, as per Annexure-A, before B.A.7535/14 - :
2. :- the Bar Council of Kerala, as early as on 28.7.2014 in respect of the alleged professional misconducts of the defacto complainant herein. It is only to compel the petitioners to withdraw Annexure-A complaint that the defacto complainant herein is now raising such false allegations. More importantly, Sri.M.Shaju Purushothaman, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are residing near Irinjalakuda in Thrissur district and the alleged scene of the occurrence in the aforementioned crime is the residence of the lady defacto complainant near Perinthalmanna within Malappuram district, and the distance between the two locations is about 100 kms. and it is highly unbelievable and improbable that the petitioners herein, who are aged 67 and 60 respectively, who are the parents of the 1st accused (who is the complainant of Annexure-A) would travel 100 kms away to indulge in the alleged activities, etc.
2. It is also submitted that the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is one under Section 452 IPC and it is accordingly prayed that the plea of pre-arrest bail may be allowed in favour of the petitioners considering these factors and that the petitioners are prepared to abide by any conditions that may be B.A.7535/14 - :
3. :- imposed by this Court, in the interests of justice.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor made submissions regarding the registration of the crime and further submitted that the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners is one under Section 452 and that in case this Court is inclined to allow the plea of pre-arrest bail, then the same may be hedged with necessary conditions so as to protect the bonafide interests of the prosecution.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this case and in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am inclined to take the view that this application for anticipatory bail can be granted, subject to necessary conditions and safeguards.
5. In the result, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners herein in connection with the above said crime, they shall be released on bail on their executing a 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: B.A.7535/14 - :
4. :- (i) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, 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. (ii) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar or graver in nature. (iii) The petitioners shall fully 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, the application stands finally disposed of. Sd/- sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge