Anandhu A. v. State of Kerala and The Station House Officer, Adoor Police Station

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 27TH CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2913 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.1808/2023 OF Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ``` ``` ANANDHU A., AGED 27 YEARS S/O. AMRUTHALAL. P.D., RESIDING AT PULICKATHOTTATHIL, EDATHITTA, EDATHITTA P.O., KODUMON, EDATHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 691555 ``` ``` BY ADVS. V.S.ABHISHEK ROHITH KURIAKOSE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 689694`** ``` BY SMT.SEENA C., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A. No.2913 of 2024 2 ## **`P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.`** ``` ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.2913 of 2024 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16[th] day of of April, 2024 ``` ## **`O R D E R`** ``` Petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.1808/2023 of Adoor Police Station. The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A and 313 286 of the Indian Penal Code. ``` ``` 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner married the defacto complainant on 07.07.2021 and while they were residing as husband and wife Dubai, the defacto complainant became pregnant. It is alleged that without the consent or information of the defacto complainant, an abortion was done and it is also alleged that the petitioner demanded more dowry from the defacto complainant. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the ``` B.A. No.2913 of 2024 3 ## **`alleged offence.`** ``` 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. ``` ``` 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the abortion was done with the consent of the petitioner and the defacto complainant and that the said fact is clear from the hospital records. It is also submitted that the case registered under the Domestic Violence Act was already quashed by this Court as evident from Annexure A2. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. ``` ``` 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, I think that this bail application can be allowed. The case is registered ``` B.A. No.2913 of 2024 4 ``` in connection with the matrimonial issues between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The matrimonial relationship can be restored at any stage. If the petitioner is arrested, the scope of reunion is remote. More voer, I am of the consideredopinionthatthecustodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, this bail application is allowed on stringent conditions. ``` ``` 6. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the ``` B.A. No.2913 of 2024 5 ``` exception so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. ``` ``` 7. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions: ``` ``` i. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation; ``` ``` ii. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned; ``` ``` iii. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate ``` B.A. No.2913 of 2024 6 ``` with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; ``` ``` iv. Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court; ``` ``` v. Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected; ``` ``` vi. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court. ``` ``` vii. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to ``` B.A. No.2913 of 2024 7 ``` effect recoveries on the information, if any given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [2020 (1) KHC 663]. ``` ``` Sd/- ``` ``` P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE ``` ``` sp/16/04/2024 ``` B.A. No.2913 of 2024 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2913/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` Annexure 1TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO. 1808/2023 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION DATED 15-12-2023 ``` ``` Annexure 2A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3-2-2022 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 151 OF 2022 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT ```