IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 2ND ASWINA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.6589 OF 2019
CRIME NO.413/2019 OF Nallalam Police Station , Kozhikode
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SUMEESH,AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.ARAVINTHAKSHAN, ANTHONIPARAMBA HOUSE, NADUVATTOM,
NORTH BEHYPORE, NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SRI.P.P.SURENDRAN
SRI.A.V.NIDHIN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.6589/2019 2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
——————————————-
B.A.No. 6589 of 2019
———————————————-
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the
instant Crime No.413/2019 of Nallalam Police Station, which has been
registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, Section323, Section427, Section498A
of the IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and SectionProtection
of Children) Act, 2015 on the basis of the First Information Statement
given by the lady defacto complainant on 21.8.2019 at about 3.30 p.m
in respect of the alleged incidents, which had happened for the period
from 15.6.2003 onwards. The lady defacto complainant in this case is
the wife of the petitioner herein.
2. The prosecution case in short is that after the marriage of
the above said spouses, the petitioner has treated the lady with cruelty
and harassment and that he had demanded her to bring gold
ornaments and had also demanded her to the property in the name of
the defacto complainant’s mother should be transferred in the name of
the petitioner and that he had manhandled the lady defacto
complainant and that he had pushed down their child and that he had
caused damage to the house of the defacto complainant’s mother etc.
B.A.No.6589/2019 3
and thereby he has committed the above said offences.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in view
of the conduct of the petitioner in damaging the house articles of the
defacto complainant’s mother and as both parties, though separately
living, are now residing within the limit of the same Police Station, this
Court may issue necessary safeguards to ensure that the petitioner does
not intimidate or threatens the defacto complainant or her mother.
The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that the petitioner has
been implicated as accused in quite a few serious cases. In order to
alleviate the said apprehension raised by the prosecution, it is
proposed to order as a safeguard that the petitioner shall not enter into
or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station
where the lady defacto complainant is now residing until the
conclusion of the trial,subject to certain exceptions, which will be dealt
with hereinafter.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that
the lady defacto complainant has already approached the learned
Magistrate under provisions of the Protection of Women from
SectionDomestic Violence Act and has secured an order restraining the
petitioner from mentally or physically harassing her or her children or
that he shall not interfere with the peaceful stay in her present
residence.
B.A.No.6589/2019 4
5. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to take the
view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be really
warranted for effectuating the smooth and fair conduct of the
investigation in this crime. Hence, it is ordered in the interest of
justice 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.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and
on his 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:-
(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.
(v) The petitioner shall not enter into or reside
anywhere within the territorial limits of the
Police Station within whose limits the lady defacto
complainant is residing, until the conclusion of the
trial in this case, except for the limited purpose of
reporting before the Investigating Officer in this
case or in any other crimes and for attending to
B.A.No.6589/2019 5the courts in connection with this case or any
other cases or for contacting his advocate/lawyer,
etc. However, if there is any genuine need for the
petitioner may temporarily enter into the said
area, he may do so, only with due permission of the
Investigating Officer.
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 will stand disposed of.
sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
acd