Pradeep Kumar and Geetha v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 5897 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.470/2024 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 63 YEARS VADAKKEMATHASSERIL,AAYIVANTHENGU, ALUMPEEDIKA P.O,CLAPPANA,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,KOLLAM, PIN - 690547`** ``` 2GEETHA, AGED 54 YEARS VADAKKEMATHASSERIL,AAYIVANTHENGU,ALUMPEEDIKA P.O,CLAPPANA,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK,KOLLAM,, PIN - 690547 ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.R.SASITH R.K.CHIRUTHA NEELANJANA NAIR ANJANA SURESH.E REETHU JACOB NANMA.B.B LIDHIYA GEORGE RIYA KOCHUMMAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT`** ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SR PP SMT NEEMA T V`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.5897 of 2024 _-:2:-_ Dated this the 31[st] day of July, 2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( in short, BNSS), for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioners are the accused 2 and 3 in Crime No.470/2024 of the Nedupuzha Police Station, Thrissur, which is registered against three accused persons for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that: the first accused got married to the defacto complainant/victim on 18.8.2019. The accused 2 and 3 are the parents of the first accused. The accused, in furtherance of their common intention, received Rs.18,00,000/- from the victim, which was her share in her parental properties. Thereafter, the accused B.A.No.5897 of 2024 _-:3:-_ misappropriated the said amount and also mentally and physically harassed the victim. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. M.R.Sasith, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the accusations levelled against them. The petitioners are only the parents of the first accused. The matrimonial relationship between the first accused and the victim is strained. There are litigations pending between them. The petitioners are totally unaware of the transactions that have taken place between the couple. The petitioners are aged 63 and 54 years respectively. The petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. B.A.No.5897 of 2024 _-:4:-_ 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. She also stated that if the petitioners are granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be gathered that the first accused was married to the victim on 18.08.2019. It is apparent that there are matrimonial disputes between the first accused and the victim and the petitioners are only the parents of the first accused. Prima facie there is no material to substantiate that the petitioners have misappropriated the money or mentally or physically harassed the victim. 8. In **Bhadres Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another** [2015 KHC 4579] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has succinctly culled out the principles B.A.No.5897 of 2024 _-:5:-_ to grant orders of pre-arrest bail. It is laid down that Courts should be careful and meticulous in evaluating the facts of each case before granting an order of prearrest bail. The court should consider whether arresting of an accused would lead to ignominy, humiliation and disgrace to the accused and their family and also if there is any frivolity in the complaint registered against the accused. 9. On an overall consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly on considering the fact that there are matrimonial disputes between the first accused and the victim, the petitioners are only the parents of the first accused, and the first petitioner is aged 63 years and the second petitioner is a lady, I am satisfied that the petitioners have made out convincing grounds to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the B.A.No.5897 of 2024 _-:6:-_ Code. Hence, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail; subject to the condition that the petitioners co-operate with the Investigating Officer. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. (ii) In the event of arrest of the petitioners, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioners on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each; (iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. (iv) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly B.A.No.5897 of 2024 _-:7:-_ make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (v) The petitioners shall surrender their passports before the jurisdictional court concerned within a period of one week from the date of their release on bail. If they have no passport, they shall file an affidavit to the effect before said court within the said period; (vi)The petitioners shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail; (vii) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. B.A.No.5897 of 2024 _-:8:-_ (viii)Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. (ix) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) And another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. (x) The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of considering the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by competent Courts. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rmm/31/7/2024