IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 8TH PHALGUNA,
1940
Bail Appl.No. 1085 of 2019
CRIME NO. 151/2019 OF Mundakayam Police Station, Kottayam
PETITIONER/ ACCUSED :
SHIJU.P.R,
AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O RAGHAVAN, PALIYAKKARA HOUSE, R.P.C.P.CO,
VANDANPATHAL, EREUMELY NORTH VILLAGE,
KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRCT,
PIN 686 513.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.SETHUNATH
SRI.V.R.MANORANJAN
RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT/ STATE :
1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MUNDAKKAYAM POLICE STATION, PIN – 686 513.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN – 682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING :
Bail Appl.No. 1085 of 2019
2
ORDER
The petitioner is arrayed as an accused in
Crime No.151/2019 of Mundakkayam Police Station,
registered under Sections 354, 354(A) 354(D) of the
Indian Penal Code. It was registered on the basis of
the F.I. Statement given by the brother’s wife of the
petitioner. It was stated that the de facto complainant
was a Christian and the petitioner’s brother Mr. Prakash
is her 2nd husband. She converted to Hindu and
became a member of the S.N.D.P. The petitioner/
accused was against the living together of the de facto
complainant with his brother.
2. The allegation was that on 15.11.2014,
the petitioner kissed her and further allegation was
that on 30.12.2018, the petitioner had publicly stated
that the de facto complainant is having bad character.
Bail Appl.No. 1085 of 2019
3
The petitioner is a KSRTC Driver. Since the The de
facto complainant and her husband applied for
membership in the Vandanpathal SNDP Sakha Yogam,
the petitioner and other family members had objected
their membership in the Vandanpathal Sakha Yogam.
Due to that enmity, the de facto complainant has
forged false case against the petitioner. It was also
narrated that certain other cases were also originated
between the de facto complainant and the mother of
the petitioner under the Protection of Domestic
Violence Act. According to the petitioner’s counsel, the
incident was occurred about 5 years back and it was
only a false complaint.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed
the application and also filed a report to the effect that
the incident was occurred nearly 5 years back. So, the
investigation is going to find out whether offence under
Section 354 IPC.is attracted or not.
Bail Appl.No. 1085 of 2019
4
4. Considering the lapse on the side of the de
facto complainant in approaching the court in time and
the incident occurred about 5 years back, I find it is
just and proper to grant anticipatory bail, as prayed for.
Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner on the following conditions :-
1. The Petitioner shall surrender before the
Station House Officer, Mundakkayam Police Station on
or before 30.03.2019 between 10.00.a.m. and
11.00.a.m. and after interrogation, he shall be
released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer.
2. The petitioner shall not commit any such
offences during this period and also co-operate with
the investigation of the crime.
Bail Appl.No. 1085 of 2019
5
3. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on the 4th Saturday of every three
months or till charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
4. If the petitioner fail to comply with any of
the orders cited above, the bail, granted to him, by
this court shall stand cancelled.
Sd/-
ANNIE JOHN, JUDGE
RKM
