SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Bijulal vs State Of Kerala on 15 November, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.7670 OF 2019

CRIME NO.2365/2019 OF Kundara Police Station , Kollam

PETITIONER/S:

BIJULAL, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. GOPALAN,
LAL NIVAS, NEAR KURISADI JUNCTION, PERUMPUZHA,
PUNUKKANNOOR KUNDARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.H.NUJUMUDEEN
SMT.G.GIGIMOL

RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY S.H.O. OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
::2::
Bail Appl..No.7670 OF 2019

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
—————————–
B.A.No.7670 Of 2019
———————————
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2019.

ORDER

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in

the instant Crime No.2365/2019 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam

District, registered for offences punishable under Secs.498A 323

of the SectionI.P.C., on the basis of the FI statement given by the lady de

facto complainant on 18.10.2019 at about 9:15 p.m. in respect of

the alleged incidents happened on the previous day on 17.10.2019

at about 11:30 p.m. in the night.

2. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner-

accused, aged 44 years, is working as a Civil Police Officer in the

Police Department of the State and the lady de facto complainant

in this case, aged 40 years, is the wife of the petitioner herein. She

was facing marital discords in her marital life and that on

17.10.2019 at about 11:30 p.m., the petitioner had made

altercations with her and then had slapped on her face and poured

kerosene over her head, etc.
::3::

Bail Appl..No.7670 OF 2019

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the abovesaid allegations raised against the petitioner are false

and baseless and the alleged incidents were happened on

17.10.2019 at about 11:30 p.m. whereas the impugned FI statement

was filed only as late as on 18.10.2019 at about 9:15 p.m. in the

night and the delay has not been explained, etc. Further that

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this

case and this Court may grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner

subject to stringent conditions.

4. The learned Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail

and has submitted that there is no significant delay in this case and

the incident had happened on 17.10.2019 at 11:30 in the night and

immediately on the next day, on 18.10.2019, the lady de facto

complainant has submitted a complaint/petition before the

District Police Chief concerned and it is thereafter she has given

her FI statement to the Police Station concerned, which was

recorded at 9:15 p.m. on 18.10.2019. Further that the petitioner is

a member of the Police force and there is every possibility of the

petitioner influencing and intimidating the witnesses, more

particularly the lady de facto complainant, who is her wife, etc.
::4::

Bail Appl..No.7670 OF 2019

5. After having heard both sides and on an evaluation of

the facts and circumstances in this case, more particularly taking

into account some of the abovesaid aspects highlighted by the

prosecution, etc., this Court is constrained to take the view that

this is not a fit case in the matter of exercising discretion under

Sec.438 of the SectionCr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would then

submit that the petitioner would immediately surrender before the

Magistrate concerned so that his bail application could be

considered on the same day of his appearance after completion of

the interrogation process.

7. Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that

it is for the petitioner to immediately surrender and personally

appear before the Investigating Officer concerned for interrogation

purposes without any further delay at any rate by 9:00 a.m. on

any day on or before 30.11.2019. The petitioner will fully co-

operate with the interrogation process. After the interrogation

process is over, the Investigating Officer will produce the petitioner

before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned in relation to

the instant crime and thereupon the learned Magistrate will

consider and pass orders on the bail application of the petitioner
::5::

Bail Appl..No.7670 OF 2019

on the same day of his production, after hearing the petitioner’s

counsel and the Prosecutor and after duly taking note of the facts

and circumstances of the case. It is made clear that the grant of

bail to the petitioner will be fully within the domain and province

of the learned Magistrate, after taking due note of the facts and

circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, the application fails and the same will stand

dismissed.

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