IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.8173 OF 2019

CRIME NO.1158/2019 OF Anchal Police Station , Kollam

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 2:

1 GEORGE KUTTY FRANCIS,AGED 27 YEARS
S/O. FRANCIS K. V., KAKKANATTU HOUSE,
MUTHALAKODAM P. O., THODUPUZHA.

2 JIJI FRANCIS,AGED 54 YEARS
W/O. FRANCIS, KAKKANATTU HOUSE, MUTHALAKODAM P. O.,
THODUPUZHA.

BY ADVS.
SectionSRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.D.FEROZE
SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.
(CRIME NO.1158/19 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
DISTRICT)

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691 306.
(CRIME NO.1158/19 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
DISTRICT)

R1-2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.8173/2019 2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
——————————————-
B.A.No.8173 of 2019
———————————————-
Dated this the 6th day of December, 2019

ORDER

The petitioners herein have been initially arrayed as accused 1 and

2 among the two accused in the instant Crime No.1158/2019 of Anchal

Police Station for offences punishable under Sections, 323, 326, 405,

420, 498A and 34 of the SectionIPC. The crime has been so registered on

3.8.2019 at about 5 p.m. pursuant to the private criminal complaint filed

by the lady de facto complainant, in which the learned Magistrate had

directed the Police to register the crime after conduct of the investigation

on the allegations in the said complaint. The Police after investigation

has deleted now the offences as per Sections 326, Section405 and Section498A and

Section420 of the IPC and has also deleted the 2 nd petitioner (A2) from the

accused array. Now the 1st petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole

accused in the said crime. The offences mentioned therein are those

punishable under Sections 323, Section324 and Section498A of the IPC. So at the

outset, it is only to be held that the plea of the 2 nd petitioner for grant of

anticipatory bail has become redundant as he is no longer arrayed as an

accused in the instant crime.

2. The allegations in the private criminal complaint filed on
B.A.No.8173/2019 3

3.8.2019 before the learned Magistrate are to the effect that lady’s

husband and mother-in-law have consistently treated her with cruelty

and harassment and that they had misappropriated her precious gold

ornaments and diamond ornaments and that they had demanded more

dowry. Further, certain allegations are made in respect of the incident

which is said to have happened on 26.6.2019, wherein it is alleged by the

lady that the 1st petitioner had forcible sexual intercourse with her and

had also finally assaulted her etc. The petitioners have pointed out that

the very same complaint has also made mention about a

petition/complaint said to have been given by the lady de facto

complainant before the Police on 28.6.2019 /29.6.2019. The petitioners

has now furnished a copy of the said petition dated 28.6.2019 said to

have been given by the lady victim before the police authorities, wherein

the above said allegations regarding the above said incidents, which is

said to have happened on 26.6.2019 are not mentioned anywhere.

Further it appears that the lady de facto complainant had subsequently

given her Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Statement before the Police wherein she

raises certain allegations of an incident which is said to have happened

on 29.6.2019. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out

that the said allegations about the incident which is said to have

happened on 29.6.2019 is raised by her for the first time in the

subsequent Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement and about which no

mention has been made either in the private criminal complaint filed on
B.A.No.8173/2019 4

3.8.2019 or in the petition said to have been given to the Police on

28.6.2019/29.6.2019. Further the learned counsel for the petitioners

would point out that very serious allegations have been raised against

the 2nd petitioner also regarding harassment, cruelty and for

misappropriation of gold ornaments and diamond ornaments. The

Police, after investigation, has now deleted the 2 nd petitioner from the

accused array and has also deleted the series of offences as per Section

326, Section405 and Section420 of the IPC . Hence, the learned counsel for the

petitioner would point out that the Police themselves have now found

that many of the allegations raised by the lady de facto complainant

against the 2nd petitioner (mother-in-law) are found to be patently false

and the allegations of misappropriation of gold ornaments and diamond

ornaments and allegations of causing grievous hurt using dangerous

weapons (Section 326 IPC) are found to be patently false and then

deleted. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners would point

out that the very credibility and believability of the prosecution story is

at stake and that, at any rate, the custodial interrogation of the 1 st

petitioner is not necessary and that this Court may grant anticipatory

bail.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the plea for

anticipatory bail.

4. It is seen that the many of the offences earlier alleged have

now been deleted and even A2 has also been deleted from the accused
B.A.No.8173/2019 5

array. The present offences alleged are those as per Section 323, Section324

and Section498A of the IPC.

5. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the

facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of some of the

submissions made hereinabove, this Court is inclined to take the view

that the custodial interrogation of the 1 st petitioner may not be necessary

for effectuating the smooth and fair conduct of the investigation in this

crime. Accordingly, it is ordered in the event of the 1 st petitioner being

arrested in relation to the above said crime, then he shall be released on

bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Forty thousand only) and

on furnishing two solvent sureties each for the like sum both to the

satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned. However, the grant

of bail will be subject to the following conditions:

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

(ii) The 1st petitioner shall fully co-operate with the
investigation.

(iii) The 1st petitioner shall report before the
Investigating Officer as and when required in
that connection.

(iv) The 1st petitioner shall not influence witness or
shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in
any manner, whatsoever.

If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the 1 st

petitioner, then the jurisdictional court concerned will stand hereby
B.A.No.8173/2019 6

empowered to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the

appropriate time.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application

stands allowed.

sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

acd