IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2019 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1941

Bail Appl.No.3116 of 2019

CRIME NO. 545/2019 OF Erumeli Police Station, Kottayam

PETITIONER/S:

JOSEPH.T.V @ JIJO, AGED 37 YEARS
S/O. VARGHESE, CHEERAMATTAM HOUSE,
ARATTUKAYAM BHAGAM, KANAMALA P.O, ANGEL
VALLEY, ERUMELY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY
TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE-686 510

BY ADV. SRI.BOBBY MATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM

RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ERUMELY POLICE STATION, ERUMELY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 509.

OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
::2::
Bail Appl.No.3116 of 2019

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
—————————–
B.A.No.3116 Of 2019
———————————
Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2019.

ORDER

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.545/2019 of

Erumely Police Station in Kottayam District, which has been

registered for offences punishable under Secs.406, 498A 354(c)

of the SectionI.P.C and Secs.119(b) 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, on

the basis of FI statement/complaint given by his wife. The

petitioner seeks grant of pre-arrest bail in this case.

2. Heard Sri.Bobby mathew, Koothattukulam, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Amjad Ali, learned Prosecutor

appearing for the respondents.

3. The brief of the prosecution case is that the petitioner-

accused had continuously tortured the defacto complainant

physically and mentally from the date of marriage and she had

handed over her gold, title deed and cheque book to one

Jainamma, as directed by the accused and that it has not been

returned back and thereby the petitioner has committed breach of

trust and that he had taken her nude photographs in the CCTV
::3::

Bail Appl.No.3116 of 2019

camera without her consent and knowledge and mixed the same

with the photos of one Jomon, who is a Panchayat Member and

published the same in medias and thereby defamed her, etc.

4. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that after the solemnisation of his marriage on

10.11.2018 he had come to know that his wife was in intimate

terms with one Jomon, who is a Panchayat Member, and after the

marriage he has gone abroad and he could reliably learnt that she

is continuing illicit relationship with the said paramour and one of

his relatives had reported that he has seen her with the paramour

in the adulterous act and thereafter he had made arrangements to

install a CCTV camera inside the house and adulterous sexual

relationship between the lady and the paramour was caught in the

said camera. Based on that the petitioner has filed Anx-III

Original Petition for divorce before the Family Court, Pala on

5.4.2019 and specific averments have been made in the said

divorce petition filed by him before the Family Court about the

above contents in the Hard Disc of the CCTV camera containing

the intimate scenes between his wife and her paramour and that

the Hard Disc was also later produced before the Family Court.

::4::

Bail Appl.No.3116 of 2019

That the petitioner has also filed a complaint/petition before the

Police authority as evident from Anx-IV dated 17.4.2019 alleging

commission of offence under Sec.497 of the SectionI.P.C by the paramour

of his wife. It is only in retaliation of the same that his wife has

triggered the FI statement on 17.4.2019 at 9:30 p.m. and that the

entire allegations have been falsely foisted against him, as a

retaliation to the above steps.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Prosecutor and after taking into account the abovesaid

facts and circumstances pointed out hereinabove, this Court is of

the view that the custodial interrogation is not really called for and

warranted in this case. Taking note of the facts and circumstances,

this Court is inclined to consider the plea for anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the petitioner being

arrested by the Police in connection with the abovesaid crime, he

shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and on furnishing two solvent sureties

for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer

concerned.

6. Further it is also ordered that it will be subject to

following conditions:-

::5::

Bail Appl.No.3116 of 2019

(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.

(iv) The 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

petitioner, then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby

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.

bkn/-