# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS**
**TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1941**
# **BAIL APPL.NO.4166 OF 2019**
**CRIME NO.174/2019 OF VYTHIRI POLICE STATION , WAYANAD**
## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:**
|**1**|**VIJAYAN, AGED 46 YEARS,**|
|---|---|
||**S/O.KUPPAN, RESIDING AT VP 10/253/C,**|
||**VYTHIRI PANCHAYATH, SUGANTHAGIRI,**|
||**KUNNATHIODAVAKA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK,**|
||**WAYANAD DISTRICT.**|
|**2**|**E.A.SUNITHA, AGED 43 YEARS,**|
||**W/O.VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT VP10/253/C,**|
||**VYTHIRI PANCHAYATH, SUGANTHAGIRI,**|
||**KUNNATHIODAVAKA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI VILLAGE,**|
||**WAYANAD DISTRICT.**|
||**BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH**|
## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:**
||**1**|**THE STATE OF KERALA,**|
|---|---|---|
|||**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**|
|||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.**|
||**2**|**THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,**|
|||**VYTHIRI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT,**|
|||**PIN - 673 576.**|
|**ADDL. **|**3**|**THULASI M.,**|
|||**W/O VIJAYAN, POOKOTTE DIARY, LAKKIDI POST,**|
|||**VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.**|
|||**IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.6.2019 IN**|
|||**CRL.MA NO.1/2019 IN BA-4166/2019.**|
|||**BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH**|
|||**SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR**|
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------B.A. No. 4166 of 2019 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of June, 2019
## O R D E R
The petitioners herein are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the instant Crime No.174/2019 of Vythiri Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.341, 323 & 506 of the IPC and under Sec.75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
2. The abovesaid crime has been registered on the basis of FIS/complaint of the lady defacto complainant. According to her, she is the legally wedded wife of the 1[st] petitioner (A-1), and that later A-1 had developed an illicit intimacy with another woman, viz, 2[nd] petitioner (A-2), and that both the above spouses are employed in the Veterinary Department, and have been staying in the official quarters allotted by that Department, and they also had a separate residence at Kolichal, which used to be occupied them. The specific case of the lady defacto complainant
B.A. No. 4166 of 2019
..3..
in her FIS, is that later A-1 had brought his paramour A-2 to the said residence at Kolichal, and they started residing there. And that A-1 had brought A-2 to reside in the said house with the intention of ousting the lady defact complainant and her daughter (born in the wedlock between her and A-1). The marriage between the lady defacto complainant and A-1 is still subsisting. Later the lady defacto complainant and her daughter had gone to the abovesaid residence at Kolichal and thereupon the scuffle and altercations have taken place, and that accused persons have attacked the lady defacto complainant and her daughter, A-1 had also kicked on the chest of the child, etc.
3. Counsel for the petitioner would point out that, the 1[st] petitioner (A-1) had already dissolved the marital relationship with the lady defacto complainant in accordance with the personal law of the Scheduled Tribal Community to which they belong, and that later he has lawfully solemnized the marriage with A-2, and that the accused persons are husband and wife, and that the scene of occurrence which is the residential property at Kolichal, is one
B.A. No. 4166 of 2019
..4..
which exclusively belongs to the 1[st] petitioner. The copy of the land tax receipt issued by the Revenue Department, as well as the copy of the ownership certificate issued by the Panchayat concerned, would show that the land holder of the land concerned appears to be the sole name of the 1[st] petitioner, and the sole owner of the residential building appears to be in the name of the 1[st] petitioner. Whereas, Smt.Celine Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the lady defacto complainant has also relied on various documents to contend that the property belongs to her party.
4. Without getting into the vexed issue of resolving the nitty gritty of such matters, a mere reading of the FIS, given by none other than the lady defacto complainant would clearly show that the residential property at Kolichal was occupied by the accused persons, and that A-1 had deliberately made A-2 stay there in order to oust the lady defacto complainant and her daughter from their rights, etc. Therefore it is evident from the clear statements made by none other than the lady defacto complainant in her own FIS, that at the time of occurrence of the
B.A. No. 4166 of 2019
..5..
incident, A-1 and A-2 have been residing in the said property, and whereas the lady defacto complainant and her daughter have been residing in the official quarters allotted by the Veterinary Department, near to Poothode Veterinary College. Further it is clear case of the lady defacto complainant that, it was she who had come to the scene of occurrence with the child, which led to the unpleasant and unsavory incidents between the parties.
5. Counsel for the lady defacto complainant would point out that, serious injury has been suffered by the daughter etc. But the fact of the matter is that, going by the admitted allegations of the defacto complainant in her own FIS, the residential property at Kolichal, which is the scene of occurrence is occupied by the accused persons, and whereas the lady defacto complainant and her daughter were residing at the quarters allotted by the Veterinary Department. Further counsel for the petitioner would also point out that, on 24.5.2019, the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta, has granted interim injunction order on I.A. No. 572/2019 in O.S.No.93/2019 in which plaintiffs therein are the 1[st] petitioner
B.A. No. 4166 of 2019
..6..
herein and the son born in the wedlock of the lady defacto complainant and the defendant therein/respondent in the IA, is the lady defacto complainant herein, and the learned Munsiff has passed an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant/respondent in the IA from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, and forcefully dispossessing the petitioners in the IA until further orders, and that the subject property is the abovesaid residential property at Kolichal.
6. It is also pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that, since the learned Munsiff has given an interim injunction order on 24.5.2019, it only stands for reason that the civil court would have granted interim injunction to the 1[st] petitioner, had he approached prior to the incident, which is hardly 10 days prior to the grant of interim injunction, and that this would clearly show that the 1[st] petitioner has rights over the property and the lady defacto complainant has been restrained by the civil court from entering into the subject property, etc.
B.A. No. 4166 of 2019
..7..
7. But the petitioners will have to fully co-operate with the investigation process, so that the investigation can bring out the truth of the matter. Accordingly the following directions and orders are passed.
- _i. The petitioners will immediately personally appear before the Investigating Officer in relation to the instant crime for interrogation purposes by any rate at 10 am on any day on or before 20.7.2019._
- _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 in relation to the abovesaid crime, then they shall be released on bail on their separately executing bonds for Rs.40,000/- each and on their separately furnishing two solvent sureties each for the like sum, both to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned._
## 8. Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail 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._
B.A. No. 4166 of 2019
..8..
- _v. The petitioners shall not visit or go anywhere near the residence of the lady defacto complainant until the conclusion of trial._
- _vi. The Investigating Officer will ensure that a Police Constable preferably a Woman Police Constable is deputed to the residence of the lady defacto complainant once in six weeks, to ascertain whether she or her daughter are subjected to any intimidation or influenced by the petitioner or men. If anything adverse is brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer, then he shall take necessary steps in accordance with law._
If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioners then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, and taking into account the allegations raised by the defacto complainant, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the District Police Chief, Wayanad, will immediately take steps to entrust the investigation of the instant Crime No.174/2019 of Vythiri Police Station to an officer of the rank of Inspector of Police, which shall be closely monitored and supervised by a superior officer of the
B.A. No. 4166 of 2019
..9..
rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and efforts should be taken to conduct a thorough and meticulous investigation in a fair and impartial manner. The investigation should be completed and finalised within 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The Prosecutor will forward a copy of this order to the District Police Chief, Wayanad for necessary information.
With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
MMG
