SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shiju.P.R vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 27 February, 2019

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 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