SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Assainar M.M. vs State Of Kerala on 10 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941

Bail Appl.No.6971 OF 2019

CRIME NO.122/2019 OF Valanchery Police Station , Malappuram

PETITIONER/S:

ASSAINAR M.M., AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT MANNANCHERY HOUSE,
PONJASSERY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ALAKKAPADY VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,PIN-683 547

BY ADVS.
SRI.TOM JOSE
SMT.GEETHA JOB

RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VALANCHERY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM-676 552

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
::2::
Bail Appl.No.6971 OF 2019

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
—————————–
B.A.No.6971 Of 2019
———————————
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2019.

ORDER

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in

the instant Anx-G Crime No.122/2019 of Valanchery Police

Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under

Secs.341, 323 376 of the I.P.C., on the basis of the FI statement

given by the lady de facto complainant on 26.4.2019 at about 6:50

p.m., in respect of the incidents happened on 25.2.2018 at 2:30

p.m.

2. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner’s

daughter is married to the son of the lady de facto complainant and

that on 25.2.2018, the petitioner had come to the lady de facto

complainant’s house at about 2:30 p.m in the afternoon on that

day and had assaulted her and had forcible sexual intercourse with

her, etc.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the abovesaid allegations made against him are absolutely

false and fabricated, that the alleged incidents said to have

happened on 25.2.2019 and that the FI statement in the instant
::3::

Bail Appl.No.6971 OF 2019

Crime has been lodged only on 26.4.2019 and the long delay of

more than 14 months has been totally unexplained by the

Prosecution which will go to the very root of the prosecution case

as it affects the very credibility and believability of the version of

the de facto complainant. Further that the abovesaid allegations

are made by the lady de facto complainant only on account of the

rivalry which she has with his daughter, who has initiated

proceedings against the lady de facto complainant. The

petitioner’s daughter, who is the daughter-in-law of the lady victim

has initiated Anx-A proceedings under the SectionDomestic Violence Act

as M.C.No.13/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court-I, Perumbavoor, on 22.3.2018. Further that since the

petitioner’s daughter was consistently treated with cruelty and

harassment by the lady de facto complainant and others, the

petitioner’s daughter was constrained to initiate Anx-B FIR FIS

in Crime No.93/2018 of Valanchery Police Station, in which the

lady victim herein has been arrayed as accused No.2 therein and

the lady’s son (who is petitioner’s daughter’s husband) has been

arrayed as accused No.1 therein for offence punishable under

Sec.498A of the SectionI.P.C. Anx-B has been registered on 3.4.2018.

Further that, the Police after investigation has filed Anx-C Final
::4::

Bail Appl.No.6971 OF 2019

Report in Crime No.93/2018 which has led to the pendency of

C.C.No.1008/2018 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court, Tirur, wherein the lady victim herein and her son have been

arrayed as accused for the abovesaid offence. Further that the

petitioner had advised his daughter to purchase peace and this

resulted in Anx-D mediation report dated 31.5.2018 in Anx-A

M.C.No.13/2018. But later, the lady victim herein and her son has

blatantly violated the terms and conditions of Anx-D mediation

proceedings. Further that, the lady victim has filed Anx-E

complaint dated 5.4.2018 against the petitioner and his daughter

before the State Women’s Commission, wherein the lady victim

does not make any allegation regarding the present alleged rape

incidents which said to have happened on 25.2.2018. On the basis

of the materials, the petitioner would point out that the instant

Anx-G Crime has been registered for the alleged rape incident is

only to falsely implicate the petitioner on account of the animosity

between those parties on various disputes. Accordingly it is urged

by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the abovesaid

allegations are false and baseless and that custodial interrogation

of the petitioner is not be necessary and warrant for the smooth

and effective conduct of the investigation.

::5::

Bail Appl.No.6971 OF 2019

4. The learned Prosecutor has opposed the plea for

anticipatory bail.

5. After hearing both sides and on a careful evaluation of

the facts and circumstances, more particularly, the long

unexplained delay of 14 months in initiating the present Crime and

also other attendant circumstances as borne out by Anxs-A to E,

this Court is inclined to take the view that custodial interrogation

of the petitioner may not be necessary for the smooth and effective

conduct of the investigation.

6. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the

petitioner being arrested in connection with Crime No.122/2019 of

Valanchery Police Station, then he shall be released on bail on his

executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only)

and on furnishing 2 solvent sureties for the like sum each to the

satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned. However, the

above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

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

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the
investigation.

(iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating
Officer as and when required in that connection.

::6::

Bail Appl.No.6971 OF 2019

(iv) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or
shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in
any manner, whatsoever.

(vi) The petitioner shall not visit or go anywhere near
the residence of the lady de facto complainant until
the conclusion of the investigation.

(vii) In case of violation of any of the above conditions,
the jurisdictional Court concerned will stand hereby
empowered to consider the application for
cancellation of bail, if required, and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail

Application stands disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,
Judge.

bkn/-

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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