SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anoop Sadasivan vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 1ST ASWINA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.5988 OF 2019

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

ANOOP SADASIVAN
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN
SADASIVAN,PERUMBALLIMALIKKAL,NAMRAPARUVIKALA,MARU
SOUTH,ALUMKADAVU.P.O,
KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE.

BY ADVS.
SRI.BINU GEORGE
SMT.HEMALATHA

RESPONDENT/STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.

3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MADHU VIHAR POLICE STATION,EAST DISTRICT,
NEW DELHI.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.5988 OF 2019 2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
—————————————–
B.A. No. 5988 of 2019
—————————————–
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2019

ORDER

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the accused No.1 in the

instant Crime No. 44/2019 of Madhu Vihar Police Station, East District,

New Delhi which has been registered for the offences punishable under

Secs. 498A and 406 r/w Sec. 34 of the SectionIPC on the basis of the FIS given by

the lady defacto complainant in this case, who is the wife of the petitioner

herein (A1). Altogether, there are 4 accused in the instant crime and

accused Nos. 2 and 4 in the said crime are the sister, father and mother

respectively of the petitioner herein (A1).

2. The prosecution case in short is that after the marriage of the

abovesaid spouses, the accused persons have treated the lady with cruelty

and harassment and that they have demanded more dowry and that they

have physically assaulted her. The counsel for the petitioner would point

out that all the accused persons including the petitioner herein are residing

in Karunagappally, Kollam District and that the entire alleged incidents in

the abovesaid crime have admittedly taken place in USA and also in New

Delhi. Further that, the accused Nos. 2 to 4 have already been granted
Bail Appl..No.5988 OF 2019 3

anticipatory bail in the abovesaid crime as per Annexure-A4 order dated

24.04.2019 rendered by this Court in B.A.No. 2128/2019. It is also

submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that it is by now well settled by a

series of rulings of this Court that in case an accused person has a

reasonable apprehension that his arrest will take place within the territorial

limits of a Sessions Court or High Court, then the Sessions court concerned

or High Court within whose territorial limits that the accused person may

be arrested, will have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plea for

anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the SectionCr.P.C. even if the crime has been

registered outside the said State, wherein the Sessions court or High Court

is situated. It has been held by various Division Bench and Single Bench

decisions of this Court in cases as in SectionC.I.Mathew v. Govt. of India

[1980 (4) KLT 942], SectionMadhusoodan v. Superintendent of Police

[1992 (2) KLT 83] and Samdeep Varghese and anr. v. State of

Kerala and others [2010 (2) KHC 881], that a place where a person

apprehends arrest is a sure test for determining the territorial jurisdiction

of High Court or the Sessions court concerned for the purpose of exercising

jurisdiction in the grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 of the SectionCr.P.C.

and if the applicant/accused can satisfy the court that he has a bonafide

apprehension that he will be arrested at a place situated within the

territorial limits of the High Court concerned or the Sessions court

concerned , then the said High Court or the Sessions court concerned will
Bail Appl..No.5988 OF 2019 4

have the jurisdiction to entertain the plea for grant of anticipatory bail

under Sec.438 of the SectionCr.P.C. on merits, notwithstanding the fact that the

crime has been registered in a Police Station, which is situated beyond the

territorial limits of the said State. This Court has also relied on the said

dictum including recent decisions as in the order dated 17.06.2015 in

B.A.No. 1289/2015, order dated 24.04.2019 in B.A.No.2128/2019, and

order dated 03.09.2019 in B.A.No.6129/2019 etc.

3. In the instant case, all the accused persons including the

petitioner herein are the permanent residents of Karunagappally, Kollam

District within the State of Kerala. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 have already been

granted anticipatory bail by this Court as per Annexure-A4 order dated

24.04.2019 in B.A.No. 2128/2019. This Court has taken the view in some of

the cases including the order dated 03.09.2019 in B.A.No. 6129/2019, that

in a case where the petitioner has satisfied the Court about grant of

anticipatory bail and where the crime is registered outside the territorial

limits of the State, then the order of anticipatory bail can be granted under

Sec. 438 of the Cr.P. C. for a limited period of 2-3 months directing that in

the event of the accused being arrested within the territorial limits of this

state within the said limited period, then he shall be released on bail and

that the said order will be in force for the said limited period and

thereafter, it is for the applicant/accused concerned to seek for appropriate

orders from the Sessions court concerned or the High Court concerned
Bail Appl..No.5988 OF 2019 5

within whose territorial limits, the crime has been registered at the Police

Station concerned.

4. After hearing both sides and after taking into account of the

facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to take the view

that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary, if

the arrest take place within the territorial limits of the State of Kerala,

within 3 months from today.

5. This Court feels that taking into account the principles of

comity of Judicial institutions, it may not be proper to give an absolute

order without any time limit. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of

the petitioner herein (A1) being arrested in relation to the instant Crime

No. 44/2019 of Madhu Vihar Police Station, New Delhi, and if the said

arrest takes place anywhere within the territorial limits of the State of

Kerala within a period of 3 months from today, then the petitioner shall be

released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on his

furnishing two solvent sureties for the likesum both to the satisfaction of

the investigating officer concerned.

6. However, the grant of bail will be subject to the following

conditions :

(1) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar
nature.

(2) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.
(3) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and
Bail Appl..No.5988 OF 2019 6

when required by the said officer in that connection.
(4) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or
attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.
(5) If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the
petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby
empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the
appropriate time.

7. However, it is ordered and clarified that the abovesaid order

will be in force only if the arrest occurs in a place within the territorial

limits of Kerala and within a period of 3 months from today or till orders

are passed by the competent Sessions court concerned or High Court

concerned within whose territorial limits the crime has been registered,

whichever is earlier. The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the 2 nd

and 3rd respondents herein for necessary information at the cost of the

petitioner.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application

will stand disposed of.

sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE

SKS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation