Baiju Sundaranganan v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: The Honourable Mr. Justice Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date: 2019-08-20
Court Decision / Holding: All further coercive steps, including arrest and look-out notices in Crime Nos. 964/2018 and 224/2019, will be kept in abeyance for four weeks from today to enable the petitioner to pursue anticipatory bail applications or other remedies in accordance with law. The court clarifies that no opinion has been expressed on merits and that the petitions are disposed of with these directions, with copies to authorities for compliance.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Baiju Sundaranganan aged 36 years s/o Sundarangan, Vandivila Veedu, Erathu, Chathanoor P.O., Kollam District

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
• SRI.R.ANIL
• SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR
• SRI.SUJESH MENON
• V.B. SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR
• SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
• SRI.THOMAS SABU
• SMT.S.LAKSHMI SANKAR
• MAHESH BHANU.S

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.T.R.RENJITH, Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition involving Baiju Sundaranganan, accused in two crimes under investigation in Chathannoor, Kollam. Crl.M.C.Nos. 5849/2019(A) and 5891/2019(F) arise from Crime No. 964/2018 (offence under Section 376 IPC) and Crime No. 224/2019 (offence under Section 306 IPC). The petitioner, presently stationed abroad in the Gulf, contends that he fears coercive measures including arrest upon return and seeks anticipatory bail relief or other remedies. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposes an anticipatory bail grant consistent with the ongoing investigations. The court notes the applicant’s travel plans and the likelihood of imminent arrest; it recalls an earlier order dated 7.8.2019 granting liberty to pursue anticipatory bail upon return, and acknowledges the possibility of Look-Out Notices. The court, after hearing the parties, directs that all coercive steps, including arrest and look-out notices in both crimes, be kept in abeyance for four weeks to enable the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court or this Court with anticipatory bail applications and to explore other remedies. The order clarifies no opinion on the merits and disposes of the petitions with these directions, while ensuring information is sent to relevant authorities for compliance.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 376 IPCSection 306 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that he is presently in a Gulf country and may face coercive steps, including arrest, upon return. He had previously sought anticipatory bail in Crime No.964/2018 and, upon advice that anticipatory bail in India is not maintainable while abroad, sought liberty to approach this Court or the Sessions Court on return. He requests coercive steps be kept in abeyance for a short period (four weeks) to enable him to move anticipatory bail applications and explore lawful remedies.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/P.P. opposes the grant of anticipatory bail in the two pending crimes and maintains that pending investigations and the seriousness of the offences justify measures to ensure law and order. The present order ultimately balances the need to secure the petitioner’s opportunity to seek relief while safeguarding statutory interests; it does not express a decision on merits.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Souda Beevi v. Sub Inspector of Police	2011 (4) KLT 52	Mentioned Only	The court cites this decision to reference the prior dictum that anticipatory bail might not be maintainable when the accused is outside India; the present order uses this for background, not as a controlling endorsement of that view.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No.5849 OF 2019(A)** **CRIME NO.224/2019 OF Chathannoor Police Station , Kollam** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **BAIJU SUNDARANGAN AGED 36 YEARS S/O.SUNDARANGAN, VANDIVILA VEEDU, ERATHU, CHATHANOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.) SRI.R.ANIL SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT SMT.S.LAKSHMI SANKAR MAHESH BHANU.S** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, -682031.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5891/2019(F), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.MC.No.5849 & 5891 OF 2019(F) 2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No.5891 OF 2019(F)** **CRIME NO.964/2018 OF Chathannoor Police Station , Kollam** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **BAIJU SUNDARANGAN AGED 36 YEARS S/O.SUNDARANGAN, VANDIVILA VEEDU, ERATHU, CHATHANOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.) SRI.R.ANIL SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682031.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5849/2019(A), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.MC.No.5849 & 5891 OF 2019(F) 3 **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------Crl.M.C. Nos. 5849 & 5891 of 2019 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of August, 2019** ## **O R D E R** The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the Crime No.964/2018 of Chathanoor Police Station which has been registered for the offence punishable under Sec.376 of the IPC on the basis of the FIS given by the lady defacto complainant on 3.10.2018 at about 12.25 pm in respect of the alleged incident which happened for the period from 5.10.2017 to 3.10.2018. It appears that the abovesaid defacto complainant later committed suicide and the Police had now registered a Crime No.224/2019 of Chathanoor Police Station for the offence punishable under Sec.306 of the IPC, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused therein. 2. Crl.M.C.No.5891/2019 arises out of Crime No.964/2018 of Chathanoor Police Station where as Crl.M.C.No.5849/2019 arises out of Crime No.224/2019 of Chathanoor Police Station. It is pointed out that the petitioner is working in a Gulf country for quite some time and that he is presently based in the said Gulf country. The petitioner had earlier filed B.A.No.4808/2019 seeking the benefit of anticipatory bail in respect of the Crime No.964/2018 of Chathanoor Police Station and since it was pointed Crl.MC.No.5849 & 5891 OF 2019(F) 4 out that the petitioner is not now in India, this Court held that the plea for anticipatory bail is not maintainable in view of the dictum laid down by this Court in a series of decisions as in _**Souda Beevi v. Sub Inspector of Police [2011 (4) KLT 52]**_ and had also given the liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate anticipatory bail application or take other appropriate remedies in accordance with law at a later point of time after he reaches the country. 3. Sri.B.Raman Pillai, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri.V.B.Sujesh Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in these two cases would point out on the basis of instructions of the parties that the petitioner has now booked a ticket to travel from the Gulf country to India in order to move anticipatory bail applications in these two crimes either before the Sessions Court or before this Court and that the petitioner has reliably learnt that the Police is taking coercive steps to arrest him, immediately on he reaches the country and that he would be deprived of his right to seek anticipatory bail for which liberty has already been accorded to him as per order dated 7.8.2019 rendered by this Court in B.A.No.4808/2019 (produced as Annexure-B in Crl.M.C.No.5891/2019 and Annexure-C in Crl.M.C.No.5849/2019). Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that there is a possibility that the police authorities also should have issued look out notices against him in regard to his involvement in the abovesaid crimes and that he could thus be Crl.MC.No.5849 & 5891 OF 2019(F) 5 arrested immediately on his arrival in the airport in India. 4. The limited prayer sought for by the petitioner is that further coercive steps may be kept in abeyance for a limited period so that the petitioner can come over to India and move anticipatory bail applications before the competent forum in relation to these two crimes and also to work out any other remedies available to him in accordance with the law in respect of these two cases. After hearing the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.T.R.Renjith, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State, the following directions and orders are passed in the interest of justice. 5. All further coercive steps that may be taken against the petitioner in pursuance to the involvement in the instant Crime No.964/2018 and Crime No.224/2019 both of Chathanoor Police Station including arrest as well as enforcement of look out notices issued in these two cases will be kept in abeyance for a period of 4 weeks from today in order to enable the petitioner to work out his remedies in relation to the instant crime in accordance with the law. It is made clear that this Court has not in any manner expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and the abovesaid directions have been issued only to ensure that the petitioner is given a reasonable opportunity to avail legal remedies in accordance with the law. 6. The learned Prosecutor will ensure that the copies of these Crl.MC.No.5849 & 5891 OF 2019(F) 6 orders are transmitted to the State Police Chief as well as to the SHO concerned and also to the competent authorities concerned, in case any look out notices have been issued against the petitioner in relation to these crimes for the purpose of information and compliance by those authorities in relation to the abovesaid directions issued by this Court hereinabove. With these observations and directions, the above Crl.M.C.s will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** ## **SKS** Crl.MC.No.5849 & 5891 OF 2019(F) 7 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 5849/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.224 OF 2019 OF CHATHANOOR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE B THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 12.4.2019 IN CRIME NO.224 OF 2019 OF CHATHANOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE C THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.4808 OF 2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 7.8.2019.** Crl.MC.No.5849 & 5891 OF 2019(F) 8 ## **APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 5891/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.964 OF 2018 OF CHATHANOOR POLICE STATION.** **ANNEXURE A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIS IN CRIME NO.964 OF 2018 OF CHATHANOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE B THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.4808 OF 2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 7.8.2019.**