PRADEEP (A1), VIJAYAKUMARI (A2), RANJITH (A3), MANIKYAN V. (A4) v. STATE OF KERALA and SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTACKAL POLICE STATION

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 13TH BHADRA, 1941** **Crl.MC.No.6180 OF 2019(B)** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.MC 907/2019 DATED 17-08-2019 OF SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:** **1 PRADEEP AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. LATE SURESH KUMAR, SOWPARNIKA, KAVILPAD, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **2 VIJAYAKUMARI AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. LATE SURESH KUMAR, SOWPARNIKA, KAVILPAD, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **3 RANJITH AGED 31 YEARS,S/O. LATE SURESH KUMAR, SOWPARNIKA, KAVILPAD, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **4 MANIKYAN. V. AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. VENKILACHALAM, PADIKKAPARAMBIL, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN** Crl.M.C.No.6180 of 2019 2 ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTACKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 503.** **SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** Crl.M.C.No.6180 of 2019 3 # **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =========================== Crl.M.C.No.6180 of 2019** **===========================** Dated this the 04[th] day of September, 2019 ## **ORDER** Petitioners herein have been arrayed as the four accused in the instant Annexure-A1 Crime No.150/2019 of Kottakkal Police Station, Malappuram, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.498A, 506, 294(b) read with Sec.34 of the IPC, on the basis of the FI Statement given by the lady de facto complainant on 25.07.2019 at about 5.50 p.m. in respect of the alleged incidents which happened for the period from 19.08.2018 to 14.07.2019. The lady de facto complainant in this case is the wife of the 1[st] petitioner herein (A-1). Petitioners 2 to 4 (A2 to A4) herein are the mother, brother, mother's cousin brother respectively of the 1[st] petitioner (A-1). 2. Petitioners have been granted anticipatory bail as per Annexure-A5 order dated 17.08.2019 rendered by the Sessions Court, Manjeri in Crl.M.C.No.907/2019 (arising out of Crime No.150/2019 of Kottakkal Police Station). Crl.M.C.No.6180 of 2019 4 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that as on the day on which the alleged Annexure-A5 anticipatory bail order was granted on 17.08.2019, petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 (A1 & A3) were in Dubai and Hong Kong respectively and they are not come back to India so far. If that be so, it was highly improper on the part of the petitioners in not disclosing the said fact that they are not in India on the day on which the anticipatory bail plea was allowed on 17.08.2019, as such an anticipatory bail plea made by an accused who is outside India at the time on which the bail plea is granted, is not maintainable in view of the dictum laid down by this Court in a series of cases as in _**Souda Beevi & another v. S.I. of Police & others**_ [2011 (4) KLT 52]. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that it has been clearly averred in paragraph No.1 of Annexure-A4 anticipatory bail application filed before the Sessions Court that the 1[st] petitioner was then in Dubai and what is stated in paragraph No.1 of Annexure-A4 thereof is only as follows: “1) On the base of the complaint preferred by one Keerthi Hari Menon, W/o Pradeep, Asharam, Padinjakkara, Kottakkal, Malapuram, Kottalkkal Police Register a case against the Petitioners 498(A), 506, 294(B) r/w 34 I.P.C. The allegation is that the Petitioners harassed the defacto complainant demanding Dowry. But the real fact is a 1[st] petitioner and defacto complainant and 2[nd] petitioner are living in Dubai happily. One day suddenly the defacto complainant found missing embraced on that 1[st] petitioner filed a complaint before a Dubai Police for man missing but later it was found that defacto complainant Crl.M.C.No.6180 of 2019 5 father came to Dubai and took the defacto complainant along with him to India, and after reaching here the filed a false complaint in Kottakkal Police Station on that the registered claim 150/2019. Now the petitioners apprehending arrest and detention.” But the only fact pleaded is that “the 1[st] petitioner, the de facto complainant and the 2[nd] petitioner are living in Dubai happily”. The said averment could be understood only on the context of meeting the allegations in the FIR regarding the alleged commission of offence as per Sec.498A of the IPC that the 1[st] petitioner and the de facto complainant, who is his wife were then living in Dubai happily and that it does not necessarily mean that the 1[st] petitioner was in Dubai as on the day on which the bail application was moved and the day on which the bail application was granted by the court. That apart, it is also stated in paragraph No.1 that the 2[nd] petitioner has also been living in Dubai, whereas now it is pointed out that the 2[nd] petitioner has been althroughout in Kerala at the time of filing of Annexure-A4 application and the grant of the bail plea and that the 1[st] petitioner was in Dubai both at the time of filing of Annexure-A4 application in August, 2019 and the grant of the anticipatory bail as per Annexure-A5 order dated 17.08.2019 and even now and that the 3[rd] petitioner (A-3) was in the State at the time of filing of Annexure-A4 application, but was in Hong Kong at the time of Annexure-A5 order dated 17.08.2019. The said conduct of the petitioners to say the least appear to Crl.M.C.No.6180 of 2019 6 be farther satisfactory. That apart, when there was at least an indirect mention in paragraph No.1 of Annexure-A4 that the Sessions Court also should have ascertained from the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as from the learned Public Prosecutor, as to whether all the parties are in the country at the time of filing of the application and on the day on which Annexure-A5 order has been granted. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit on the basis of instructions of his parties that 1[st] and 3[rd] petitioners would undertake to immediately come back to India and report before the Investigating Officer for interrogation process, well before 05.10.2019, so that after interrogation process, if they are arrested, they will be released on bail on the basis of Annexure-A5 order. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor would then point out that in case, the 1[st] and 3[rd] petitioners do not appearing before the Investigating Officer on or before 05.10.2019 as now undertaken, then the Investigating Officer will be instructed to file appropriate application before the Sessions Court, Manjeri so granted Annexure-A5 order to cancel the bail so granted to those parties. Further, it is pointed out by the learned Prosecutor that steps to be taken to issue notices to the 2[nd] and 4[th] petitioners to immediately appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation process. The main prayer made by the petitioner is to challenge condition Crl.M.C.No.6180 of 2019 7 No.5 in Annexure-A5 order, which has only laid down that the petitioners shall not leave India, without the previous permission of the court. It cannot be said to be unreasonable and unfair and is one of the standard conditions made by the bail granting courts, including this Court, especially when the accused persons are abroad. The said condition clearly makes it clear that all what is stated in condition No.5 in Annexure-A5 order is that the accused persons shall not leave India, without the previous permission of the court. So in other words if any of the accused persons want to leave India, all they have to do to file a proper application before the jurisdictional court below concerned seeking permission of that court to travel abroad and then it is for that court to consider the said plea independently on merits, after hearing the accused persons and the prosecution. With these observations and directions the above Crl.M.C will stand dismissed. **Sd/-** **ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** vgd Crl.M.C.No.6180 of 2019 8 ## **APPENDIX** ||**APPENDIX**| |---|---| |**PETITIONER'S/S**|**EXHIBITS:**| |**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.150/2019**| ||**OF KOTTACKAL POLICE STATION.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE VISA OF THE 1ST PETITIONER**| ||**ISSUED FROM THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE VISA OF THE 3RD**| ||**PETITIONER.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN CRL.MC**| ||**NO.907/2019 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI.**| |**ANNEXURE A5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SESSIONS**| ||**COURT, MANJERI, IN CRL.MC NO. 907/2019**| ||**DATED 17.08.2019.**|