Crl.M.C. No. 9138 of 2023, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **MONDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1946** ## **CRL.MC NO. 9138 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.55/2022 OF CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Bail Appl. NO.2407 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER:** ## **XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX** **BY ADVS. V.SETHUNATH V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA) THOMAS ABRAHAM (K/1051/2010) SREEGANESH U. LAKSHMINARAYAN.R** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, SASTHAMANGALAM. P.O THIRUVANATHAPURAM., PIN - 695010** - **3 THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRIME BRANCH, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, SASTHAMANGALAM. P.O THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695010** - **4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CRIME BRANCH CENTRAL UNIT, PERUNTHANI, THIRUVANATHAPURAM., PIN - 695008** - **5 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF THIRUVANATHAPURAM (RURAL) , UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033** - **6 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695571** - **7 SAIJU.A.V. AGED 46 YEARS,SREEKAILAS, PERWA-A10, PURAVOORKONAM, KARAKULAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695564 BY ADVS.SRI.S.U.NAZAR – SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (CRIMINAL) ADV. SRI. VIJAYABHANU P.- SR. COUNSEL** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 2 ## **ORDER** This Crl.M.C has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside Annexure A-21 order dated 20-02-2023 in CMP No. 4/2023 (an application filed for cancellation of bail granted to the 7[th] respondent in Crime No. 55/CB/TVM/R/2022) on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kattakada; to cancel the Anticipatory Bail granted to the 7th respondent through an order dated 5.4.2022 in B.A. No.2407/2022 and to direct that the 7th respondent be arrested and committed to custody under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the above Crl.M.C. 2. The petitioner is the _de facto_ complainant/victim in Crime No.55/2022 of Crime Branch District Unit, Thiruvananthapuram which was originally registered as Crime No.222/2022 of Malayinkeezh Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged are under Sections 376, 376(2)(a), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(I) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. The case is now transferred to the Crime Branch as Crime No. 55/CB/TVM/R/2022. 3. The allegation against the 7[th] respondent was that, in the year 2019, while he was working as the Station House Officer, at Malayinkeezh Police Station, he became acquainted with the _de facto_ complainant/victim after she had gone to the Police Station to file a complaint. It is alleged that, on 13.10.2019, the 7[th] respondent visited the _de facto_ complainant/victim and Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 3 committed rape on her and after that, continued to engage in sexual relationships with her on several occasions by promising to marry her, after divorcing his wife. This Court, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the 7[th] respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor proceeded to grant anticipatory bail to the 7[th] respondent upon certain conditions. The order of this Court granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner was challenged before the Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.(Criminal) No.27745/2022. The Supreme Court, by Annexure-A7 order dated 14.10.2022 dismissed the Special Leave Petition _in limine_ . It appears that, after this Court granted bail to the 7[th] respondent, yet another crime was registered against him as Crime Nos.2067/2022 of Nedumangadu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram alleging the commission of offences under Sections 323, 342, 354, 376(2)(n), 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 7[th] respondent filed B.A.No.9822/2022 before this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.2067/2022 of Nedumangadu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. This Court, by order dated 23.12.2022, rejected the application for bail in so far as the bail application related to the 7[th] respondent. Shortly after this Court dismissed B.A.No.9822/2022, the 7[th] respondent along with other accused in Crime No.2067/2022 of Nedumangadu Police Station filed Crl.M.C. 19/2023 before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No.2067/2022 of Nedumangadu Police Station on the ground that the entire issues had been settled with the _de facto_ Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 4 complainant/victim. It is to be noted that B.A.No.9822/2022 arising out of Crime No.2067/022 had been dismissed by this Court in so far as it relates to the 7[th] respondent on 23.12.2022 and by 2.1.2023, the 7[th] respondent was before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings on the ground of settlement. By order dated 27.3.2023 in Crl.M.C.No.19/2023, this Court quashed the proceedings for reasons stated in that order. Yet another Crime registered against the 7[th] respondent, his wife and daughter as Crime No.2092/2022 of Nedumangadu Police Station on 3.12.022 alleging the commission of offences under Sections 323, 354 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was also quashed by this Court through order at4ed 27.3.2023 in Crl.M.C.No.35/2023. 4. While matters stood thus, the Investigating Officer in Crime No.55/2022 of Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram filed a petition before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kattakada for cancellation of the bail granted to the 7[th] respondent, alleging that two separate crimes namely Crime Nos.2067/2022 and 2092/2022 both of Nedumangadu Police Station had been registered against the 7[th] respondent after this Court had granted bail to him on a condition that he shall not commit any further offences while on bail. The petitioner also approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kattakada seeking to cancel the bail granted to the 7[th] respondent taking the contention that a document produced before this Court along with B.A.No.2407/2022 was a forged/fabricated/concocted document. The Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 5 applications filed by the Investigating Officer and the petitioner/victim were rejected by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kattakada, on 28.2.2023 through Annexure-A21 order. The document which is alleged to be forged/fabricated/concocted is Annexure-A6 in B.A.No.2407/2022 which is described as a 'report' given by the writer of the Station in which the 7[th] respondent was then functioning as Inspector of Police, to the 7[th] respondent. The reading of Annexure-A6 in B.A.No.2407/2022 indicates that a lady had contacted the writer sometime between 15.2.2022 and 21.2.2022 enquiring about the formalities for acquiring a gun licence and also enquiring about the facilities available for training to use a gun stating that she was facing a threat to her life. It is stated that, when the writer requested the lady to file a complaint regarding any threat to her life, the lady informed him that the 7[th] respondent had destroyed her family life and now she is facing threat from the 7[th] respondent and his wife and that is the reason for enquiring about the formalities for obtaining a gun licence. It is further stated that the lady also informed the writer that within three months she would see to it that the 7[th] respondent was thrown out of service. It is further stated that, on 28.2.2022, a person who introduced himself as an Advocate approached the writer and informed him that the 7[th] respondent was in a spot of mess and he was willing to act as a mediator and to settle the matter. It is stated that, when the writer enquired about the issue, he was informed of the alleged relationship between the petitioner and the 7[th] respondent. It is stated that the Advocate informed Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 6 the writer that, unless the matter is settled, a crime alleging the commission of the offence of rape would be registered against the 7[th] respondent. It is stated that the writer was informed that the matter could be settled by paying an amount of Rs.25 lakhs. It is further stated in Annexure-A6 in B.A.No.2407/2022 that, thereafter, on 5.3.2022, an office bearer of the Congress Party approached the writer stating that he was the one who had sent the Advocate and enquired as to whether the writer had informed the Circle Inspector (7[th] respondent) and further stated that the matter can be settled for an amount of Rs.15 lakhs. According to the report, the writer informed the person who approached him that he would not interfere in such matters and warned the person from approaching him in future. According to the petitioner, there are sufficient indications to show that the said report of the writer of the Police Station where the 7[th] respondent was functioning as Circle Inspector at that time was created only to demonstrate before this Court that the complaint against the 7[th] respondent was a malafide complaint and on account of the failure of the blackmail attempt. The petitioner asserts that a person who has approached this Court with unclean hands and has produced a forged/fabricated/concocted document before this Court to secure anticipatory bail is not entitled to continue under the protection of the orders issued by this Court and the anticipatory bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled. Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 7 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in _**Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and another; AIR 2000 SC 2587**_ to establish that there was no merger of the order of this Court to the order of the Supreme Court and therefore, this application can be considered independently of the fact that the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner against the order of this Court granting anticipatory bail to the 7[th] respondent. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 7[th] respondent would vehemently contend that, since the challenge to the order of this Court in B.A.No.2407/2022 had already been rejected by the Supreme Court through Annexure-A7 order, at the instance of the petitioner, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to contend that the bail granted to the 7[th] respondent must be cancelled. It is submitted that the allegation that the report produced as Annexure-A6 in B.A.No.2407/2022 is a forged/fabricated/concocted document is incorrect. It is submitted that the allegation that Annexure-A6 in B.A.No.2407/2022 is a forged/fabricated/concocted document is on the premise that on checking the Police Station computer, it was revealed that the said document was created someday in February of 2022 which itself shows that the allegation of two persons having approached the writer after the date of creation of the document for settling the issue between the petitioner and the 7[th] Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 8 respondent by paying huge amounts was a concocted story. It is submitted that whenever a copy of a previous document is made and thereafter edited, the date of creation of the document will show as the date on which the original document was created. It is submitted that while preparing Annexure-A6 report, the writer had copied certain portions from an earlier document and this is the reason why the date of creation of Annexure-A6 document (in B.A.No.2407/2022) in the Police Station computer shows that it was created sometime in February of 2022 and not on the date it was submitted to the 7[th] respondent. It is submitted that subsequent crimes registered against the 7[th] respondent have all been quashed by this Court and therefore, the registration of those crimes also cannot be taken as grounds to cancel the bail granted to the 7[th] respondent. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate while considering the applications filed for cancellation of bail, had properly appreciated the matter and had held that the bail cannot be cancelled based on mere surmises and conjectures and only on account of the fact that subsequent crimes have been registered against the 7[th] respondent regarding forgery/manipulation and creation of forged/fabricated/concocted document (Annexure-A6 in B.A.No.2407/2022). It is submitted that the said case is only at the stage of the investigation, and therefore, the bail cannot be cancelled on the ground that a forged/fabricated/concocted document had been produced before this Court to secure bail. The learned counsel for the 7[th] respondent placed Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 9 reliance on the judgment of this Court in _**Nehru Trophy Boat Race Society v. Vismaya Ventures (India) Private Ltd.; 2024 KHC OnLine 217**_ to contend that a false averment in a document would not make a document a forged document for Sections 463 & 464 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that on 30.1.2024, the 7th respondent appeared before the committal court (Judicial First Class Magistrate No.1, Kattakada) and obtained regular bail from that Court. It is submitted that the case has now been committed to the Sessions Court and has been registered as S.C No. 671/2024 and the case is posted on 31.5.2024 before the Additional District & Session Court (For the trial of cases relating to atrocities & sexual violence against Women & Children), Thiruvananthapuram for the appearance of the 7th respondent. 7. Sri. S.U. Nazar, the learned Special Government Pleader (Crl.) appearing for the Investigating Agency would submit that this is a fit case where the bail granted to the 7[th] respondent is to be cancelled. He submits that the 7[th] respondent was working as a Circle Inspector of Police at the relevant time. It is submitted that the 7[th] respondent was, therefore, well aware of the law and yet he dared to file a bail application before this Court producing therewith a document which has been revealed to be a forged/fabricated/concocted document. It is submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram has filed an affidavit in B.A.No.1281/2023 in Crime No.164/2023 of Malayinkeezh Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 10 Police Station [which is the crime registered against the 7[th] respondent and the writer of the Police Station alleging the commission of offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code] where it is clearly stated that Annexure-A6 in B.A.No.2407/2022 is dated 6.3.2022 and that on examination of the hard disk of the computer of the Malayinkeezh Police Station by experts on the High Tech Cell, it was seen that the file had been created on 13.2.2022 itself and was later manipulated and handed over to 7[th] respondent as if it was submitted on 6.3.2022 also stating that an Advocate and a Politician had approached the writer for extorting money from the 7[th] respondent on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that when such an offence is committed by a member of the uniformed force, the matter has to be viewed as a serious transgression of the law. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader (Crl) placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in _**Rajan K.S. v. State of Kerala; 2010(3) KHC 537**_ to contend that, when a forged/fabricated/concocted document is produced along with an application for anticipatory bail to secure bail, the application for anticipatory bail must be dismissed on the ground that the applicant had attempted to defraud this Court. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in _**United India Insurance Company v. Sanjay Singh; 2000 KHC 488**_ to contend that where fraud is _prima facie_ established in proceedings before a Court the order obtained by perpetuating such fraud should be recalled as fraud Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 11 unravels everything. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, would submit that the _modus operandi_ of the 7[th] respondent was to settle the cases registered against him by filing complaints against the _de facto_ complainant/victim in these cases using his wife and daughter. He refers to the circumstances under which Crime Nos.2067/2022 and 2092/2022 of Nedumangadu Police Station came to be quashed by this Court. It is submitted that such a person who uses every possible device to mislead the judicial system has no right to be granted anticipatory bail as it is settled law that the grant of anticipatory bail is discretionary and if granted, it ought to be cancelled on it being brought to the notice of the Court that the bail order was obtained by practising deception or fraud. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the 7[th] respondent and the learned Special Government Pleader (Crl) appearing for the State/Investigating Agency, I think that the bail granted to the 7[th] respondent is liable to be cancelled. The law on the issue may be considered. In _**Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra**_ , (2004) 2 SCC 362 it was held:- **“.........** _Rejection of bail stands on one footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be lightly resorted to.”_ In _**Bhuri Bhai v. State of M.P**_ , 2022 KHC OnLine 5598 it was held:- Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 12 _“20. It had not been the case of the prosecution that the appellant had misused the liberty or had comported herself in any manner in violation of the conditions imposed on her. We are impelled to observe that power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection; and such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail. In other words, the powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused and in fact, in a case where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439(2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case. In the matter of the present nature, in our view, over-expansion of the issue was not required only for one reason that a particular factor was not stated by the Trial Court in its order granting bail.”_ ## In _**Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P,**_ 2022 KHC OnLine 6591 it was held:- _It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled :-_ _a) Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record;_ _b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim;_ _c) Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail;_ _d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds.;_ _e) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice;_ Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 13 _f) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified;_ _g) When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case._ The facts of this case compel me to take the view that the bail granted to the 7th respondent is liable to be cancelled. The affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, filed in B.A.No.1281/2023 (the said case was listed along with this case) in Crime No.164/2023 of Malayinkeezh Police Station which is the crime registered alleging forgery etc., clearly indicates that Annexure-A6 produced along with B.A.No.2407/2022 was a forged/fabricated/concocted document. The affidavit to the extent relevant reads as follows:- _“2. Annexure A6 in the Bail application is a document of report submitted by 2[nd] accused to the petitioner herein regarding extortion of money by de facto complainant from the petitioner allegedly intended to blackmail him. Investigation revealed that the document was created by 2[nd] accused as a result of conspiracy between the petitioner and 2[nd] accused with the intention of submitting the same before the Hon'ble High Court. It was also revealed that “Adv Rajesh” is a fietitious person created by the petitioner herein and 2[nd] accused. Similarly, the witnesses shown in the Annexure VI document, Dileep was also questioned and recorded his statement. He submitted that he had not gone to the 2[nd] accused as a representative of any one for settling the issues between the petitioner and the victim in the rape case. His statements were videographed and furnished to the jurisdictional court. A1 petitoner or A2 in the case did not produce or furnish this questioned document to any authority except the Honourable High Court. If the annexure A6 document was genuine, it would have been submitted before the Police higher ups. But instead, the document was submitted before the Hon'ble High Court for defending the criminal case_ Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 14 _against the petitioner. Investigation revealed that such areport was prepared by Mr. Pradeep and handed over to Saiju. But the content of the report was a created story. The advocate by name Rajesh is a fictitious person in the report. Similarly Mr. Dileep stated that he never demanded money on behalf of the victim for settling the issue. The report prepared by Pradeep is seen dated 06.03.2022. But while examining the hard disk of Malayinkeezhu Police Station by expert from Hitech cell, it is found that file was already created on 13.02.2022 itself, and later given to A1 by A2 on 06.03.-022 stating that Adv.Rajesh had approached A2 on 28.02.022 and Dileep on 05.03.2022, for extorting money from A1.”_ Though there are certain allegations that the other documents produced along with the bail application are also forged/fabricated/concocted, I do not intend to consider those allegations as those relate to the non-receipt of a complaint filed by the wife of the 7[th] respondent and a petition stated to have been filed by the 7[th] respondent before the District Police Chief, Thiruvananthapuram (Rural). 11. The facts of this case as narrated above indicate that the law laid down by this Court in _**Nehru Trophy Boat Race Society (supra)**_ does not apply. The facts narrated above indicate that a document was prepared as if it had been prepared on 6.3.2022 and submitted before the 7[th] respondent by the writer of the Police Station where he was working also referring to the fact that a certain person posing as an Advocate and another person (a local politician) had approached the writer stating that unless huge sums of money were paid, a false case would be preferred against the 7[th] respondent. According to the affidavit filed by the Deputy Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 15 Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram, the investigation has revealed that the said document was created in February 2022 referring to certain events which took place in March 2022 which is sufficient proof of the fact that the document was forged/fabricated/concocted for strengthening the case of the 7[th] respondent before this Court. A reading of the order of this Court dated 5.4.2022 in B.A.No.2407/2022 will indicate that this Court had also noted the contents of Annexure-A6 in B.A.No.2407/2022 and the facts stated therein while deciding to grant anticipatory bail to the 7[th] respondent. As held by this Court in _**Rajan K.S (supra)**_ , when a forged/fabricated/concocted document is produced along with a petition seeking anticipatory bail, it is the duty of this Court either to refuse anticipatory bail or to cancel it once the fraud is brought to the notice of this Court. In _**United India Insurance Company (supra)**_ , the Supreme Court observed as follows:- _“3. “Fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that “no judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unraveis everything” (Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley (1956 (1) QB 702: 1956 (2) WLR 502 (CA)))”_ In _**Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh**_ , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 187 it was held: Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 16 **==> picture [15 x 15] intentionally omitted <==** _“12. Law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail, (a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of bail order; (c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail; (d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud.”_ That apart, I also notice that, in violation of the condition imposed by this Court while granting bail to the 7[th] respondent, he had got himself involved in two other crimes. Though this Court has quashed those crimes on the ground of settlement, I believe that the fact that two crimes were registered against the 7[th] respondent should also weigh this Court while considering the application for cancellation of bail. 12. The fact that a Special Leave Petition filed against the order of this Court in B.A. No.2407/2022 (granting anticipatory bail to the 7th respondent) was dismissed by the Supreme Court does not lead me to conclude that this petition must also be dismissed. It must be noted that when this Court is petitioned with a specific plea that a document produced along with the application for anticipatory bail was forged/fabricated/concocted for strengthening the case of the 7[th] respondent before this Court, it is incumbent on this Court to consider the application for cancellation of bail. Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 17 In light of the above discussion, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A- 21 order is set aside. The anticipatory bail granted to the 7th respondent vide Annexure A-4 order dated 5.4.2022 in B.A. No.2407/2022 will stand cancelled. The prayer under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C is allowed. The Investigating Officer in Crime No. 55/CB/TVM/R/2022 is directed to take respondent No.7 into custody and produce him before the jurisdictional Court. Any bail bonds executed by the petitioner either under the order dated 5.4.2022 in B.A. No.2407/2022 or following the order dated 30.1.2024 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakada will stand cancelled. The case against the 7[th] respondent is pending as S.C No. 671/2024 before the Additional District & Session Court (For the trial of cases relating to atrocities & sexual violence against Women & Children), Thiruvananthapuram and is posted for the appearance of the 7th respondent. I make it clear that the 7th respondent will be entitled to move an application for regular bail before the trial Court and should such application be filed, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously, on merits and untrammelled by any observations in this order. Sd/- **GOPINATH P. JUDGE** acd Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 18 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 9138/2023** |**PETITIONER ANNEXURES**|| |---|---| |**Annexure A1(SEALED**|**THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE F.I.R & F.I.S IN**| |**COVER 1)**|**CRIME NO. 222/2022 OF MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE**| ||**STATION DATED 19-03-2022**| |**Annexure A2 (SEALED**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL APPLICATION IN B.A**| |**COVER 2)**|**NO. 2407/2022 FILED ON 21-03-2022 FILED ON**| ||**21-03-2022 WITH ANNEXURES (EXPECT ANNEXURE -**| ||**1 WHICH ALREADY MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1)**| |**Annexure A3 (a)**|**THE TRUE COPIES OF THE REPORTS DATED 25-03-**| |**SEALED COVER 3**|**2022 FILED BY THE DY.S.P. DISTRICT CRIME**| ||**BRANCH (RURAL) BEFORE THE J.F.M.C NO.1**| ||**KATTAKKADA**| |**Annexure A3 (b)**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 2-04-2022**| |**SEALED COVER 4**|**FILED BY THE DY.S.P, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH**| ||**(RURAL) BEFORE THE J.F.M.C NO.1, KATTAKKADA**| |**Annexure A4**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN**| ||**B.A NO.2407/2022 DATED 5-4-2022**| |**Annexure A5 (SEALED**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.**| |**COVER 5)**|**55/CB/TVM/R/2022 OF CRIME BRANCH CENTRAL**| ||**UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 11-04-2022**| |**Annexure A6**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN**| ||**CRL.M.C NO. 2994 /2022 DATED 31-05-2022**| |**Annexure A7**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON:**| ||**SUPREME COURT IN S.L./P (CRIMINAL) NO.**| ||**27745/2022 DATED 14-10-2022**| |**Annexure A8 (SEALED**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R & F.I.S IN CRIME**| |**COVER 6)**|**NO. 2067/2022 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION**| ||**DATED 29-11-2022**| |**Annexure A9**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN**| ||**B.A NO.9822/2022 DATED 23-12-2022**| |**Annexure A10 (SEALED**|**THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PETITION IN**| |**COVER 7)**|**CRL.M.C NO. 19/2023 DATED 2-1-2023 ALONG**| ||**WITH AFFIDAVIT OF THE VICTIM**| |**Annexure A11**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN**| ||**CRL.M.C NO. 19/2023 DATED 27-03-2023**| |**Annexure A12 (SEALED**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR & FIS IN CRIME NO.**| |**COVER 8)**|**2068/2022 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION DATED**| ||**29-11-2022**| |**Annexure A13 (SEALED**|**THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PETITION IN**| |**COVER 9)**|**CRL.M.C NO. 215/2023 DATED 4-1-2023 ALONG**| ||**WITH AFFIDAVIT OF THE VICTIMS**| |**Annexure A14 (SEALED**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.C**| |**COVER 10)**|**NO.215/2023 DATED 27-03-2023**| |**Annexure A15 (SEALED **|**TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 2092/2022**| Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 19 |**COVER 11)**|**DATED 3-12-2013 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION**| |---|---| |**Annexure A16 (SEALED**|**THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PETITION IN**| |**COVER 12)**|**CRL.M.C NO. 35/2023 DATED 2-1-2023**| |**Annexure A17**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED**| ||**27-03-2023 IN CRL. M.C NO.35 / 2023**| |**Annexure A18 (SEALED**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CMP NO. 3900/2022**| |**COVER 13)**|**DATED 12-12-2022 AND FILED ON 13-12-2022 AND**| ||**FILED ON 13-12-2022 FILED BY THE**| ||**55/CB/TVM/R/2022**| |**Annexure A19 (SEALED**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE**| |**COVER 14)**|**PETITIONER/VICTIM BEFORE THE J.F.M.C, NO.1**| ||**KATTAKKADA IN CMP NO. 4/2023 DATED 3-1-2023**| |**Annexure A20 (SEALED**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE**| |**COVER 15)**|**ACCUSED/7TH RESPONDENT IN THE CMP NO.**| ||**3900/2022 DATED 9-2-2023**| |**Annexure A21 (SEALED**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY**| |**COVER 16)**|**THE J.F.M.C NO.1, KATTAKADA IN CMP NO.**| ||**3900/2022 AND CMP NO. 4/2023 DATED 28-2-2023**| |**Annexure A22 (SEALED**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21-3-**| |**COVER 17)**|**2022 AND PROCEEDINGS IN CMP 798/2022 ON THE**| ||**FILE OF THE JFCM NO. I KATTAKADA**| |**Annexure A23 (SEALED**|**THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.**| |**COVER 18)**|**798/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM NO. I**| ||**KATTAKADA DATED 30-4-2022**| |**Annexure A24 (SEALED**|**THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CMP NO. 2677/2022**| |**COVER 19)**|**(WRONGLY SHOWN AS CMP NO. 798/2022) DATED**| ||**30-07-2022 FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT./**| ||**ACCUSED ON THE FILE OF THE J.F.M.C NO.I,**| ||**KATTAKADA**| |**Annexure A25 (SEALED**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.**| |**COVER 20)**|**785/2022 OF MALAYANKEEZHU POLICE STATION**| ||**DATED 3-8-2022**| |**Annexure A26 (SEALED**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R DATED 8-2-2023 IN**| |**COVER 21)**|**CRIME NO. 164/2023 OF MALAYANKEEZHU POLICE**| ||**STATION**| |**Annexure A27 (SEALED**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE**| |**COVER 22)**|**DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (RURAL) TO THE**| ||**SUPERINTENDENT OF CRIME BRANCH DATED 22-08-**| ||**2022, ALONG WITH A FILE NOTE FROM PETITION**| ||**CELL**| |**Annexure A28 (SEALED**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE**| |**COVER 23)**|**DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (RURAL) TO THE STATE**| ||**POLICE CHIEF DATED 25-06-2022**| |**Annexure A29 (SEALED**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT**| |**COVER 24)**|**SUBMITTED BY THE DY.S.P, DISTRICT CRIME**| ||**BRANCH TO DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (RURAL)**| ||**DATED 4-6-2022**| Crl.M.C.No.9138/2023 20 **Annexure A30 (SEALED THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COVER 25) ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH TO THE STATE POLICE CHIEF DATED 2608-2022 ALONG WITH THE ENQUIRY REPORT PREPARED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CRIME BRANCH Annexure A31 (SEALED TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(ORD) NO. 3365/2022/HOME COVER 27) DATED 26-11-2022**