Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1944 (CRIME NO.13/2022 OF ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT) PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 : 1 DEEPTHI, AGED 30 YEARS, KONGATH HOUSE, THENDENKAAVU, ERUMAPETTY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN - 680 584 2 SURESH KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, AATTTUPURATH HOUSE, AATTOOR, AMMBALANADA, CHELEKKARA THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 583 BY ADVS. J.VIMAL P.SETHUMADHAVAN RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT : STATE OF KERALA (CRIME NUMBER 13/2022 OF ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031. BY SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A.No.492 of 2022 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2022
ORDER
This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.13/2022 of
Erumapetty Police Station, Thrissur District, alleging offences under Sections 494, 406, 417, 420, 506, 120-B r/w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 75 and 87 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, 'the JJ Act').
3. The prosecution case is that on 22.05.2010, the marriage
of the de facto complainant with the first accused had taken place and in their wedlock, two children were born to them. Subsequently, the first accused left the matrimonial home and started residing with the 2 nd accused and misappropriated the money given to her. It is further alleged that the first accused also misused the gold ornaments and even cheated the de facto complainant by misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- given by her to repay the chitty loan availed by the de facto complainant. The first accused also failed to take care of the children born in the wedlock thereby committing the offences alleged against him.
4. Sri.Vimal Janardanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire allegation in the FIR are false and that she has gone out of the matrimonial home on 19.12.20212. It was further submitted the offence alleged under the JJ Act are bailable especially in the nature of the allegations raised by the de facto
complainant. It was submitted that the children have not been abandoned and on the other hand are entrusted with the parents of the de facto complainant and hence the offence alleged under the JJ Act cannot be alleged to have been committed by the petitioners.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions submitted
that the petitioner being the biological parent had actually abandoned the children and therefore the offence falls under the first proviso to Section 75 of the JJ Act, constituting a serious and non-bailable offence. It was also contended that the first petitioner is residing with her paramour - the 2nd petitioner and therefore they are not entitled for anticipatory bail.
6. On an appreciation of the contentions raised as well as on a perusal of the complaint filed by the de facto complainant, I find that the issue has arisen out of a matrimonial dispute between the de facto complainant and the first petitioner. The alleged illicit relationship between the petitioners is the cause of the dispute. However, there is nothing to indicate that any custodial interrogation is essential in the nature of the case. With respect to misappropriation of money, the transactions are all seen to be carried out through the banks. In such circumstances a serious custodial interrogation may not be necessary.
7. Therefore, I am inclined to allow this application. However, petitioners are liable to be interrogated on a particular day. In the said circumstances, the application is allowed on the following conditions :
i. The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on 13.06.2022 and if after interrogation of the petitioners, the Investigating Officer is of the opinion that the petitioners are to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer. ii. Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required. iii. Petitioners shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Investigating Officer. iv. Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses nor shall they indulge in other crimes. v. Petitioners shall not attempt to interact with the de facto complainant unless the de facto complainant seeks for such interactions. vi. In the event of violation of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer will be free to move for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court, notwithstanding the grant of bail by this Court. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
made solely for the purpose disposing of this anticipatory bail application and the same shall not be conclusive as far as the trial of the case is concerned. The Bail Application is allowed as above. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 492/2022 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES : Annexure2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT FROM 01.01.2021 TO 31.12.2021 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER