Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 1367 OF 2021 PETITIONER/ACCUSED :- ABHI AJITH SANKAR AGED 32 YEARS VELUR PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, ANARI NORTH, AAYAPARAMBU PO, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690517 BY ADV K.S.HARIDAS RESPONDENT :- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1369/2021, 1368/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 1369 OF 2021 PETITIONER/ACCUSED :- REMA DEVI AGED 51 YEARS VELUR PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, ANARI NORTH, AAYAPARAMBU PO, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690517 BY ADV K.S.HARIDAS RESPONDENT :- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1367/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 1368 OF 2021 PETITIONER/ACCUSED :- AJITH KUMAR VS AGED 54 YEARS VELUR PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, ANARI NORTH, AAYAPARAMBU PO, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690517 BY ADV K.S.HARIDAS RESPONDENT :- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 BY SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.07.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1367/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
[Bail Appl. Nos.1367/2021, 1369/2021, 1368/2021] Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.74 of 2021 of Veepapuram Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354,
354A(1)(ii), 354D(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, these petitioners have moved this application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
2. Bail application No.1368 of 2021 is filed by the first accused, Bail application No.1367 of 2021 is filed by the second accused and Bail application No.1369 of 2021 is of the third accused.
2. The prosecution case is that the second
accused has married the defacto complainant as per the custom of their community on 28.08.2020 and they resided together as husband and wife at his residence along with her in-laws, the other accused. While so she was subjected to both mental and physical cruelty by the petitioners alleging that she has not brought sufficient gold ornaments and money and she has to bring more dowry from her parents. The first accused has also removed the SIM card from her mobile phone and thereby, she could not contact her parents. The second petitioner is a poojari and he used to leave the house early morning, immediately thereafter, this first petitioner used to enter into her bedroom quite often and had even attempted to outrage her modesty,
on various occasions. He along with the third petitioner had misappropriated her entire gold ornaments and subjected her to physical and mental torture. Thereby, the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners they are totally innocent of the allegations levelled against them. The learned counsel has raised a plea of false implication by the
defacto complainant, who left her house within 8 months of her marriage with the second petitioner. In fact, she was not interested to reside with the petitioners at her matrimonial home and she used to pick-up quarrel with the second petitioner and thus left the house. On 26.11.2020 she left the house of the petitioners under the pretext to attend the marriage of her uncle but thereafter, she did not return to their residence. After few days, they were falsely implicated in this case. They apprehend unnecessary arrest and hence they are compelled to approach this court with this application.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this application submitting that there are very serious allegations against the first accused,
the father-in-law of the defacto complainant. In fact, the main allegation is against him and not against the second accused, her husband. So granting
of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners are vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The F.I.Statement of the defacto complainant has been produced by the learned Public Prosecutor for perusal. At present only the F.I.Statement as well the F.I.R are available on record to verify whether there are very serious allegations against the petitioners so as to have custodial interrogation for the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation of the case. The defacto complainant is a young lady aged only 21 years. She was pursuing her studies at the time of her marriage. From her statement, it is revealed that the understanding between the parties before the marriage was to allow her to continue with her studies. As per her
F.I.Statement, it could be seen that she was not permitted to continue her studies and she was also prevented and obstructed from communicating with her parents. The first petitioner has falsely removed the SIM card of her mobile phone and also deleted all the names in the contact list from her mobile phone. So she was unable to contact her parents while she was residing with her in-laws suffering their torture.
7. It could also be seen from her statement that
the second petitioner, her husband is a poojari of a temple and he used to leave the home to attend his work early in the morning. During his absence, in the wee hours of the morning the first petitioner used to misbehave to her quite often and he had even attempted to outrage her modesty. Considering the gravity of the offences alleged against the first petitioner at the instance of the defacto complainant, I think that it is not just and proper to exercise the discretionary power of this court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the first accused, who is the petitioner in B.A.No.1368 of 2021. Hence, the application submitted by him for pre-arrest bail stands dismissed. But so far as the case of the second and third petitioners are concerned, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail in their favour subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The petitioners (accused 2 and 3) shall be
released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the event of their arrest.
(ii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing. (iii)They shall co-operate with the investigation and trial of the case.
(iv) They shall not directly or indirectly, make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(v) They shall not commit any offence while on
bail. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law. Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE SMA