SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Unnikrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 11 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 19TH ASWINA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.6813 OF 2019

CRIME NO.1847/2019 OF Adoor Police Station , Pathanamthitta

PETITIONER:

1 UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O. DAMODHARAN PILLAI, KRISHNA SADANAM VEEDU,
KULANJIKKADU, THOTTUVA PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR
PATHANAMTTHITTA DISTRICT.

2 SYAMALA,
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, KRISHNA SADANAM VEEDU,
KULANJIKKADU, THOTTUVA, PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.RADHIKA S.ANIL

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.10.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.6813/2019 2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
——————————————-
B.A.No. 6813 of 2019
———————————————-
Dated this the 11th day of October, 2019

ORDER

The petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in the

instant Annexure-A Crime No.1847/2019 of Adoor Police Station,

Pathanamthitta, which has been registered for offences punishable under

Secs.323, 324, 506, 498A 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Secs.75 77 of

the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection ) Act, 2015, on the basis of the FI

Statement given by the lady de facto complainant on 10.09.2019 at about

6.20 p.m., in respect of the alleged incidents, which happened for the

period from 02.06.2009 to the last incident which had occurred on

09.09.2019. A1 is the husband of the lady defacto complainant in this case.

Petitioners herein (Accused Nos.2 3) in the instant crime are the father

and mother respectively of A-1.

2. The prosecution case in short is that after the marriage of the

abovesaid spouses, the accused persons had treated the lady victim with

cruelty and harassment and that they have demanded more dowry from her

and that the petitioner used to frequently assault her. Further that on

09.09.2019 at about 7.30 p.m., A-1 had slapped the lady on her face by

hand and with a torch and also whacked her brother Rahul with a chopper

and that A-3 had beaten the lady de facto complainant’s another brother

Rakesh on his backside with a walking-stick and A-2 had beaten the de
B.A.No.6813/2019 3

facto complainant and A-1 had also beaten his child with a torch and also

forcibly poured alcohol to his child’s mouth and thereby they have

committed the abovesaid offence. A-1 has been arrested in relation to this

case on 11.09.2019 and was remanded and later this Court has ordered his

release as per regular bail order dated 1.10.2019 in B.A.No.6947/2019 filed

by him. It is pertinent to refer paragraphs 3 to 5 of the order dated

1.10.2019 in B.A.No.6947/2019 filed by A1 in this case, which read as

follows:

“3. Sri.K.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid
allegations are false and fabricated and that the entire
incidents alleged to have happened on 09.09.2019 at about
7.30 p.m. are absolutely false and that as a matter of fact
the truth is otherwise out and that a counter case as per
Annexure-B Crime No.1848/2019 of Adoor Police Station
has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.451,
323, 354, 427 and 34 of the IPC, on the basis of the FI
Statement given by the petitioner’s mother (A-3) herein on
10.09.2019 at about 8.15 p.m., in respect of the alleged
incident, which happened on 09.09.2019 at about 7.30 p.m.
Further that, the scene of occurrence, day and time of
occurrence of both Annexures.A B crimes are the same.
Further that, the two brothers of the lady de facto
complainant herein and three other identified persons have
been arrayed as the accused in Annexure-B Crime
No.1848/2019 and the allegations in Annexure-B crime is
to the effect that on the same day at around the same, when
the de facto complainant and his parents were in their
house, the two brothers of the petitioner’s wife had come
there and assaulted the petitioner and his parents (who are
the three accused in Annexure-A crime) and that it is only
to wriggle out of the said criminal culpability in Annexure-B
crime is that false allegations have been made in the
instant Annexure-A crime. Accordingly, it is urged by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that at any rate, as the
petitioner has already undergone detention since
11.09.2019, his further detention may not be necessary and
that this Court may order him to release on regular bail,
subject to any stringent conditions.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has seriously
opposed the grant of regular bail and has pointed out that
B.A.No.6813/2019 4

there is a possibility of the petitioner intimidating and
influencing the witnesses, more particularly, the lady de
facto complainant, if he is let out on bail.

5. After hearing both sides and after careful
evaluation of the facts and circumstances of this case, more
particularly, taking note of the aspects borne out on the
counter case in Annexure-B crime, wherein the de facto
complainant therein is A-3 herein and the accused therein
are the two brothers of the lady de facto complainant herein
and the other identified persons and as the scene of
occurrence in both the cases is the same, etc. and also
considering the fact that the petitioner has already
undergone detention since 11.09.2019, this Court is
persuaded to take the view that the further detention of the
petitioner may not be necessary and so he could be released
on regular bail subject to stringent conditions. However,
taking note of the abovesaid 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 de
facto complainant is residing, until the conclusion of the
investigation process in this case, subject to certain
exceptions which would be dealt with hereinafter.”

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

main allegations are raised as against A1 and that this Court may grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioners herein (A2 and A3).

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of

anticipatory bail.

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

facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that the

main allegations are raised as against A1, this Court is inclined to take the

view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners herein (A2 and A3)

may not be necessary for the smooth and effective conduct of the

investigation in this case. Accordingly, it is ordered in the event of the

petitioners being arrested in relation to the above said crime, then they

shall be released on bail on their separately executing a bond for
B.A.No.6813/2019 5

Rs.40,000/- (Forty thousand only) each and on their separately furnishing

two solvent sureties each for the like sum both to the satisfaction of the

Investigating Officer concerned. However, the grant of bail will be subject

to the 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.

If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the

petitioners, then the jurisdictional court concerned will stand hereby

empowered to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate

time.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail

Application stands allowed.

sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

acd

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