SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Siyam vs State Of Kerala on 27 September, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 5TH ASWINA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.6685 OF 2019

CRIME NO.734/2019 OF Paravoor Police Station , Kollam

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:

1 SIYAM, AGED 22 YEARS
S/O. MAHIN, PLOT 5, HOUSE NO.36,
TSUNAMI FLAT, KALLUMKUNNU, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM.

2 SIDIQUE AGED 24 YEARS
S/O. MAHIN, PLOT NO.5, HOUSE NO.36,
TSUNAMI FLAT, KALLUMKUNNU, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM.

3 RASHID, AGED 21 YEARS
S/O. SHAJAHAN, FLAT NO.1, HOUSE NO.2,
TSUNAMI FLAT, KALLUMKUNNU, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM.

4 * SHIBIN, AGED 18 YEARS
FLAT NO.5, HOUSE NO.3, TSUNAMI FLAT,
KALLUMKUNNU, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. (DELETED)

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

* PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IN THE PARTY ARRAY IS
DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.09.2019 IN CRL.M.A NO.
1/19 IN B.A. NO.6685/19.

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031.

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM 690001.
B.A. No. 6685 of 2019

..2..

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.B.JAYASURYA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A. No. 6685 of 2019

..3..

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
————————————-
B.A. No. 6685 of 2019
————————————-
Dated this the 27th day of September, 2019

ORDER

The petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to

3 in the instant Crime No. 734 of 2019 of the Paravoor Police

Station, Kollam, which has been registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 294(b), 506 and 354

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the

FI statement given by the lady defacto complainant on 02.09.2019

at about 9.00 p.m. in respect of the alleged incident which

happened on the same day at about 5.30 p.m..

2. The prosecution case in short is that as the lady

defacto complainant’s son’s friend was having love affair with the

cousin sister of the first petitioner (first accused) and as the first

petitioner was under the impression that the lady’s son was

helping his friend to carry on the said love affair, the first

petitioner had animosity against the lady defacto complainant’s
B.A. No. 6685 of 2019

..4..

son on that ground and out of that animosity, on 02.09.2019 at

about 5.30 p.m. , the first petitioner had assaulted and attacked the

lady’s son upon which he fled away and got into his house and the

petitioners had followed him and when they tried to attack the

lady’s son, the lady tried to intervene and that the first accused has

attacked the defacto complainant with a stick and had criminally

trespassed into her house and had beaten the lady’s son with the

stick and had abused the lady using filthy and foul language and

had kicked on her underbelly. Four persons have been named as

accused in the crime. The Police, after investigation, has deleted

the 4th accused from the accused array and the petitioners 1 to 3

have been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 3.

3. The counsel for the petitioners would point out

that the allegations of violating the modesty of the woman under

Section 354 IPC are not brought out in this case and further that

the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary

in this case.

4. The learned Prosecutor has seriously opposed the
B.A. No. 6685 of 2019

..5..

plea for anticipatory bail. However, it appears that the main overt

acts are alleged as against the first petitioner (first accused).

Though the defacto complainant has stated about four accused

persons in the FIS, the Police, after investigation, has found that

only three persons are involved in the crime. The allegations

against the first petitioner are serious and moreover, there are

allegations that the petitioners have criminally trespassed into the

residence of the lady defacto complainant. Accordingly, this Court

is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the first

petitioner (first accused).

5. As regards the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, the

following directions are passed:

i. The petitioners will immediately personally appear before the
Investigating Officer in Crime No.734 of 2019 of Paravoor
Police Station, Kollam District, for interrogation purposes at
9.00 am on any day on or before 10.09.2019.

ii. The petitioners will fully co-operate with the Investigating
Officer in the conduct of the above interrogation process.

iii. After the interrogation process is over, in case the
Investigating Officer arrests the petitioners 2 and 3 in relation
B.A. No. 6685 of 2019

..6..

to the abovesaid crime, then they shall be released on bail on
their executing bond for Rs.40,000/- each and on furnishing
two solvent sureties each for the like sum, both to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.

6. Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail as

regards the 2nd and 3rd petitioners will be subject to following

conditions:-

i. The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal offences of
similar nature.

ii. The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation.
iii. The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as
and when required in that connection.

iv. The petitioners shall not influence witness or shall not tamper
or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.
v. The petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the
defacto complainant/victim, witnesses; nor shall they tamper
with the evidence.

vi. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.
vii. The petitioners shall not reside or enter into the
territorial limits of the Police Station where the lady defacto
complainant is residing until the conclusion of the
investigation process, except for the limited purpose of
reporting before the Investigating Officer concerned in this
crime, or for attending to the Court in relation to this case or
any other cases or for contacting their lawyers/advocates
concerned.

B.A. No. 6685 of 2019

..7..

If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by

the petitioners then the jurisdictional court concerned shall stand

hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at

the appropriate time.

The plea for anticipatory bail as regards the first

petitioner will stand rejected.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail

Application will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE
ds 28.09.2019

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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