SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Robinson.A.S. vs State Of Kerala on 30 September, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 8TH ASWINA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.6818 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 6009/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -I, ALAPPUZHA

CRIME NO.637/2019 OF MANNANCHERRY POLICE STATION , Alappuzha

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

ROBINSON.A.S.,AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.SEBASTIAN, ARAYASSERIL, KATTOOR.P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JAMES

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANNANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANNANCHERRY POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.09.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.6818/2019 2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
——————————————-
B.A.No.6818 of 2019
———————————————-
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2019

ORDER

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the

instant Crime No.637/2019 of Mannancherry Police Station, Alappuzha

District for offences punishable under Sections 324, Section326, Section308 and Section498A

of the IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and SectionProtection

of Children) Act, 2015, on the basis of the F.I.Statement given by the

lady defacto complainant on 8.6.2019 at about 4.40 p.m in respect of

the alleged incident, which had happened on 6.6.2019 at about 11 p.m.

in the night. The lady defacto complainant, aged 32 years, in this case

is the wife of the petitioner/accused, aged 36 years.

2. The brief of the case in this crime is that the

petitioner/accused on 6.6.2019 at about 11 p.m had attacked his wife on

her head with an iron rod at her bedroom and she restrained the attack

with her hands resulting in fracture to both the hands as well as injury

to her forehead. Further that, seeing the same, when the couples’

child had tried to restrain the accused, he had thrown away the child

by dragging with his hands. Thereby, he has committed the above said

offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that

the above said allegations are false and fabricated and that the lady
B.A.No.6818/2019 3

deacto complainant is having an illicit affair with a person called ‘Saji’

and that he had repeatedly warned her not to have any contact with

that man as he was a man leading a loose moral life and that on the day

in question the said Saji had come to his house and due to altercations,

he had started assaulting the petitioner and the petitioner had

defended himself and at that time, the petitioner’s wife had intervened

and it is only to the said scuffle that she would have sustained injuries.

4. The petitioner has surrendered on 21.8.2019 and

thereafter, he has been remanded and has been under detention since

then. Now it is submitted by both sides that the investigation in this

case has been duly completed and the final report/chargesheet has also

been filed before the trial Court concerned.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that

persons of the locality as well as the close relatives are taking steps to

mediate the disputes between the spouses and that this Court may

order to release him on regular bail subject to any stringent conditions,

as the investigation in this crime has already been completed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the

plea for grant of regular bail and has pointed out that, going by the

incidents in this crime, if the petitioner is let off on bail, there is

possibility of the petitioner intimidating or threatening the witnesses,

more particularly the lady defacto complainant none other his wife.

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

facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the crucial
B.A.No.6818/2019 4

aspects that the final report/chargesheet has already been filed, after

completion of the investigation and also the fact that the parties are

spouses, this Court is inclined to take the view that the petitioner shall

be released on regular bail subject to stringent conditions, in order to

address the concern and apprehension raised by the prosecution

regarding the possibility of the petitioner intimidating and threatening

the witnesses including the lady defacto complainant, it is proposed to

order as a safeguard as a condition for grant of bail that the petitioner

shall not reside or enter into anywhere within the territorial limits of

the Police Station where the lady defacto complainant is residing until

the conclusion of the trial in this case, subject to certain exceptions and

also subject to outcome of any mediation process that may be effected

through any competent Court or any mediation centre attached to any

Court. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner/accused shall be

released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees

Forty Thousand only) each and on his furnishing 2 solvent sureties for

the like sum each to the satisfaction of the competent court concerned.

However, the above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i). The petitioner will report before the Investigating
Officer concerned at any time between 09:00 a.m.
and 01:00 p.m. on every 2nd and 4th Saturdays for
the next 4 months. Thereafter the petitioner shall
report before the Investigating Officer as and when
directed by him.

(ii). The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to
influence the defacto complainant/victim,
witnesses; nor shall tamper with the evidence.

(iii). The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence
B.A.No.6818/2019 5

while on bail.

(iv) The petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere
within the limits of the Police Station within whose
limits the lady defacto complainant is residing, until
the conclusion of the trial, except for the limited
purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer
in this case or in any other crimes and for attending
to the courts in connection with this case or any other
cases or for contacting his advocate/lawyer, etc.

(v) However, in case the petitioner has any emergent
personal need to visit the said area, he may do so, but
only after getting prior permission from the
Investigating Officer.

(vi) So also, it is ordered that in case the disputes between
the petitioner and his wife is resolved by any
successful mediation process, that may be ordered by
any mediation centre attached to any Court, then the
petitioner may make separate application before this
Court seeking modification of the above said
condition. After the period of six weeks or so, in case
either the petitioner or his wife is interested to seek
mediatory efforts to resolve the disputes, the parties
will be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional
Magistrate Court concerned (JFCM-I, Alappuzha,
who is dealing with the instant crime) seeking for
necessary orders in that regard, thereupon the
learned Magistrate, after hearing both sides and the
learned Prosecutor may refer the parties to the
nearest mediation centre.

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 Application

will stand disposed of.

sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

acd

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