Hari G. Kuttan v. The Station House Officer, Adoor Police Station & State of Kerala

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1941** # **BAIL APPL.NO.5604 OF 2019** **CRIME NO.1095/2019 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **HARI G.KUTTAN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. GOPINATHAN, MARUTHIVILA MELETHIL VEETTIL, MALANKAVU, THUVAYUR SOUTH P.O., KADAMBANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANANTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691 552.** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.SETHUNATH, SRI.V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA), SRI.M.AYYOOBUKHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:** **1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691 523. 2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, PIN - 682 031.** ## **SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -------------------------------------------B.A. No. 5604 of 2019 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of August, 2019 ## O R D E R The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1095/2019 of Adoor Police station, Pathanamthitta District. The said crime was originally registered on 30.4.2019 based on the FIS given by the victims at hospital on 29.4.2019. The offences originally alleged in the said FIR are those under Secs.452 & 324 of the IPC. The Police after investigation have now included offences as per Secs.450 & 393 of the I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case in short is that, the two victims are husband and wife, aged about 76 and 70 years respectively were staying alone and that on 29.2.2019 at about 7:30 p.m., due to rain there was no electricity connection, somebody had knocked on their door. The male victim got up and opened the door and asked who he was and a person who fully covered his face by wearing a helmet had entered the room and thereafter with a steel rod, had hit on his face and knee and when the lady victim came there, the accused using the same steel rod, hit her on B.A. No. 5604 of 2019 ..3.. her head and nose and he had immediately left the place and seeing the obstruction by the victim, he had disappeared in the darkness. Hearing the cries of the aged couple, some nearby people gathered there. Both the couple were hospitalized on the same day as they suffered serious injuries and the male victim had suffered lacerated wounds on the right eye brow and abrasions on the ring finger and left knee and the lady victim suffered lacerated wounds on the left side of the head and nose. The FIS was recorded from them on the same day, after they were hospitalised and later the crime has been registered on 30.4.2019, wherein the accused has been arrayed as an unnamed person. After the lady had recovered, Police had taken Sec.161 statement from her on 12.05.2019, at which point of time she disclosed that after hearing their noise and cry, some people in the locality had come there and informed that somebody was seen running immediately after the incident and the petitioner herein (Hari) whose, grandmother is working as a maid in the house of the couple and his friend one Rejoy had also come there to enquire about the incident. Later, Police had questioned the said Rejoy who had disclosed to the Police that at around 7.30 B.A. No. 5604 of 2019 ..4.. pm on the same day, petitioner had come to his house and told him that he had left his motor cycle near the house of the victims and that Rejoy might also accompany him to take back the motor cycle and both of them had gone to the house of the victims and both of them had entered into the house of the victims also and later the petitioner had taken the motor cycle which was parked near their house and on hearing that Police might come there, he had gone away with the motor cycle. Thereafter, the Police has questioned the petitioner, whereupon he has given the confession statement confirming the version of Rejoy and thereupon the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the said crime. The petitioner has been arrested on 9.6.2019 and has been under judicial custody since then. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless and further that the petitioner has already suffered detention for the last 66 days after his remand on 9.6.2019. Further that, his sister's marriage is proposed to be conducted on 1.9.2019, and that the petitioner is a very young person hardly at the age of 20 years, and B.A. No. 5604 of 2019 ..5.. that this Court may in the interest of justice order to release him on regular bail subject to any stringent conditions. 4. Learned Prosecutor has seriously opposed the grant of bail and has submitted that now the offence as per Sec.450 of the IPC has been deleted and the offence as per Sec.457 is included for which the maximum imprisonment would extend upto 14 years. Further that going by the past conduct of petitioner in relation to this crime, there is strong possibility that the petitioner intimidating and influencing both the victims who are aged couple, if he is let out on bail. 5. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the very young age of the petitioner as well as the the fact that the petitioner's sister's marriage is now proposed to be conducted in a short time, as well as the nature of the allegations disclosed in this case, this Court is inclined to take the view that further detention of the petitioner may not be necessary or warranted. However the apprehension raised by the prosecution regarding the likelihood of the petitioner intimidating and B.A. No. 5604 of 2019 ..6.. influencing the witnesses in this case more particularly the aged couple who are victims, who are even otherwise known to the petitioner's family cannot be safely ruled out by this Court and appropriate safeguards will be incorporated as conditions in the grant of bail. It appears that residence of the petitioner and that of the victims come within the limits of the same Police Station. 6. Accordingly it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on his furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, both to the satisfaction of the competent court below concerned. However the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions:- - i. _The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every 2[nd] and 4[th] Saturdays, at any time between 9 am and 1 pm, for a further period of 10 months._ - _ii. He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the defacto complainant, witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence._ - _iii. He shall not commit any offence while on bail. If the petitioner commits any offence of similar nature, then the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned is hereby authorized to immediately take up steps for cancellation of bail of the petitioner after getting a report in that_ B.A. No. 5604 of 2019 ..7.. _regard from the Investigating Officer concerned, and after hearing both sides._ - _iv. The petitioner shall not visit or go anywhere near to the residence of the victims in this case._ - _v. The petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station where the victims are residing until the conclusion of trial, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer concerned in this crime, or for attending to the Court in relation to this case or any other cases or for contacting his lawyers/advocates concerned._ - _vi. However the petitioner can reside in his parental home for 5 days prior to his sister's marriage and 5 days after her marriage. It is also made clear that if the petitioner has any other emergent personal need to visit the said area, he may do so but only with the prior permission of the Investigating Officer concerned._ - _vii. The Investigating Officer concerned will send a Police Constable (not in uniform) once in a month for the next 10 months to the residence of the victims to ascertain from them, whether the petitioner or any people under him have in any manner intimidated or threatened the victims, and if anything adverse against the petitioner is so brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer, then the said officer will take necessary steps in accordance with law._ B.A. No. 5604 of 2019 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned shall stand hereby empowered to consider the plea for cancellation of bail if required, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG