## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS**
**TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/22ND ASWINA, 1936**
**Bail Appl..No. 6675 of 2014 ()**
**--------------------------------------------CRIME NO. 1818/2014 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA**
## **PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:**
**------------------------------------------**
**NATARAJAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN, VATTAYATHU NIRAPPIL, ETTIMOODU NEDUMON P.O., EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE ADOOR TALUK (PRESIDENT NEDUMON SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., EZHAMKULAM ADOOR).**
**BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S SRI.RENJIT GEORGE SRI.RENJITH.R.NAIR SMT.ANJU MOHAN SRI.S.K.SUJITH KRISHNA SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL) SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)**
## **RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:**
**----------------------------------------**
## **1. STATE OF KERALA**
**REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 682031.**
**2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ADOOR POLICE STATION, ADOOR PATHANAMTHITTA, 689645.**
**RDEFACTO COMPLAINANT BY ADV. SMT.REKHA C.NAIR R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:**
das
## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.**
------------------------------------------
B.A. No. 6675 of 2014
-----------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of October, 2014
## **O R D E R**
The petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.1818/2014 of Adoor Police Station is the applicant herein who seeks anticipatory bail by invoking the jurisdiction under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as he apprehends arrest in connection with the said crime involving the offence under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the defacto complainant Kunjumol, who is working as an accountant in the Ezhamkulam Branch of the Nedumon Service Co-operative Bank, was hugged and kissed by the petitioner, who is the President of the aforementioned Co-operative Society Bank. The said incident occurred on 14.08.2014 at about 11 a.m., when the lady defacto complainant was engaged in her duties.
3. Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, learned senior counsel, instructed by Sri. K. Shaj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the alleged incident happened on 14.08.2014 and that the election to the aforesaid Co-operative Society Bank was
**B.A. No. 6675 of 2014**
**-2-**
held on 17.08.2014, in which the petitioner had competed in the election process and he was duly elected as the President of the Bank on 19.08.2014 and it is only thereafter that the lady defacto complainant had lodged the First Information raising allegations in the aforementioned crime. He would further urge that the petitioner is an activist of the leading opposition party and the defacto complainant is the sympathizer of the main ruling party and she had campaigned against the panel led by the petitioner and she had endeavoured to get her seniority dispute resolved earlier when the petitioner was holding the office of the President of the Co-operative Society Bank and as the same could not be acceded to due to legal impediments the defacto complainant has raised these allegations. It is due to such personal animosity that the lady has chosen to prefer this complaint, is one of the major submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly urge that these allegations of the petitioner have not in any way influenced the police authorities in their investigation of this crime in a fair and
**-3-**
## **B.A. No. 6675 of 2014**
proper manner and that these allegations are raised by the petitioner only to wriggle out from the situation and get the relief in this application. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application and would further urge that if this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail, the same should be done with stringent conditions so as to send a strong message to the community that such offences will be dealt with very strictly and stringently by the State authorities concerned and also to ensure to protect the bonafide interests of the prosecution and that of the defacto complainant.
5. Having considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and evaluating the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail in this case, but hedged with very stringent conditions. This court is convinced that stringent conditions are to be placed while granting anticipatory bail so as to protect not only the interest of the prosecution but also to protect the interest of the defacto complainant. There could be strong
**B.A. No. 6675 of 2014**
**-4-**
possibility of the petitioner utilising his position as President of the Bank to influence the witnesses, on the alleged scene of occurrence in the premises of the Bank, where the lady is working. This Court should also ensure that the defacto complainant, who is an employee of the Bank is not in any way harassed, by the influence of the petitioner, who is its President.
6. Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is prepared to abide by any of the conditions that is deemed reasonable, just and necessary by this Court in the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, I am inclined to place restriction that the petitioner shall not discharge the duties and functions as the President of the Nedumon Service Co-operative Bank until the submission of the final report in this case, as this will send a strong message to the community and public at large that the interest of the Public and the State is protected while granting this bail and also will ensure protective measures against the possibilities mentioned in the previous paragraph. This is done as the petitioner is heading a responsible organisation, which is
**B.A. No. 6675 of 2014**
**-5-**
functioning in the domain of the public. Moreover, the petitioner is the superior of the defacto complainant lady, who is the only an accountant of the above said Co-operative Society Bank. So, accordingly, this Court is also further inclined to order that the petitioner shall not enter the precincts of Ezhamkulam Branch of the Nedmon Service Co-operative Bank. The Ezhamkulam Branch of the Bank is situated within the territorial limits of Adoor Police Station. Hence it is also deemed necessary that the petitioner shall not enter the precincts of the Branch in which the lady defacto complainant is working until the completion of the criminal proceedings in this case. This condition is placed as the lady defacto complainant is essentially placed in a subordinated position in the Service Co-operative Bank in which she is working, compared to the petitioner, who is the Executive Head of the said Bank.
7. In this view of the matter it is ordered that in the event the petitioner is being arrested in connection with Crime No.1818/2014 of Adoor Police Station, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five
## **B.A. No. 6675 of 2014**
**-6-**
thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the above crime and subject to the following conditions:
_i. The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within three days from the execution of the bail bond before the Investigating Officer and if he is not a holder of passport, then he shall file affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport in connection with his travel abroad, then he is free to approach the court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case, if such an application is filed, the trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, is free to consider the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking necessary guidance from the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in the case_ _**Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala** , reported in 2009(2) KLT 712, notwithstanding the aforementioned conditions imposed by this Court._
_ii. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar or graver nature._
_iii. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.1818 of 2014 of Adoor Police Station between 10 a.m. and 12 noon on every alternate Sundays._
_iv. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the_
**-7-**
## **B.A. No. 6675 of 2014**
- _investigating officer as and when required._
- _v. The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever._
- _vi. The petitioner shall not function as the President of Nedumon Service Cooperative Bank until the submission of the final report in this case. If there is any difficulty in working out this Order, the bonafide reasons thereof can be pointed out and appropriate application for modification can be filed in this bail application for its consideration on merits._
- _vii. The petitioner shall not enter the precincts or premises of the Branch of the Nedumon Service Co-operative Bank in which the lady defacto complainant is working, until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in this case and the petitioner shall not exert any power or influence in any manner so as to harass or cause any unlawful prejudice to the defacto complainant._
If there is violation of any of these conditions, the bail
granted herein is liable to be cancelled.
The application stands accordingly disposed.
## Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A. To Judge
jjj
