Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1944 PETITIONER/S: 1 ALANDEV AGED 19 YEARS S/O. SAHADEVAN, EDAVANA HOUSE, KOONAMUCHI P.O., PELAKKATTU PAYOOR, CHOONDAL VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680504 2 SAHADEVAN AGED 56 YEARS S/O. THAMAN, EDAVANA HOUSE, KOONAMUCHI P.O., PELAKKATTU PAYOOR, CHOONDAL VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680504 BY ADVS. DHANYA P.ASHOKAN M.R.VENUGOPAL S. MUHAMMAD ALIKHAN RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 S.I. OF POLICE KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680503 OTHER PRESENT: SR.PP SMT.M.K PUSHPALATHA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
======================== B.A. No. 89 of 2022 ======================== Dated this the 10th day of June, 2022
ORDER
This is an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioners are the accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime
No. 2180 of 2021 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 506, 354 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The prosecution case is that, on 25.12.2021 the
accused abused the husband of the defacto complainant and assaulted him and when the defacto complainant attempted to intervene, the 1st accused trespassed into the house and after shouting abusive words slapped her on her face. While the 3rd accused beat the husband of the defacto complainant with a stick. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 pulled the hand of the defacto complainant’s daughter and slapped her apart from the 3rd accused pushing down the daughter of the defacto complainant.
4. Smt. Dhanya P. Ashokan, the learned counsel for
the petitioners contended that, petitioners are only accused Nos. 2 and 3 and that the allegations against them, even it is assumed to be true for arguments sake still the alleged offences are only bailable. It was further pointed out that, the only non bailable offence alleged against them is under the provisions of SC/ST Act which can be attributed only to the 1 st accused and not to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that, there are case and counter case against the defacto complainant also which is evident from Annexure 1.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that, the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature and that the 1 st accused is not in the country and that petitioners ought not to be enlarged on pre-arrest bail.
6. Pursuant to the notice served on the defacto
complainant, she appeared before this Court personally and made her submissions. It was pointed out that, petitioners are neighbours of the defacto complainant and that they had assaulted them without any instigation. It was also pointed out that, the accused have abused the defacto complainant and her family members and had also called them by their caste names, thus committing the offences alleged.
7. After perusing the FI Statement as well as the
FIR in Crime No. 2180/2021 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, I notice that the offence under the SC/ST Act is alleged to have been committed by the 1 st accused. In such circumstances, prima facie, the petitioners cannot be alleged to have committed any bailable offence. However, taking into reckoning the fact that the petitioners have
been arrayed as accused along with 1 st accused, I am of the view that it is a matter for consideration at the time of trial.
8. On appreciating the circumstances as well as the arguments, I am satisfied that the petitioners can be enlarged on bail on the following conditions;
(i) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 16.06.2022 and shall subject themselves to interrogation.
(ii) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer
proposes to arrest the petitioners, then, they shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.
(iii) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.
(iv) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the defacto complainant or her family members;
(v) Petitioners shall not commit any offence while they are on bail.
(vi) Petitioners shall not enter into the property of the defacto complainant and nor shall they cause any harm or inconvenience to the defacto complainant or her family.
(vii) Petitioners shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
The bail application is allowed as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE LU APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 89/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 27/12/2021 IN CRIME NO. 2188/2021 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ANNEXURE2 TRUE COPY OF THE FI STATEMENT DATED ANNEXURE3 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 18/12/2014 // True Copy // PA To Judge