Rajesh.R v. State of Kerala

## `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ## `PRESENT` ## `THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS` ``` TUESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ## `BAIL APPL. NO. 2692 OF 2024` ``` CRIME NO.163/2024 OF CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR ``` ## `PETITIONER:` ``` RAJESH.R, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.RAJAN.K.P., KALLANAKKARA HOUSE, MANGALAMDAM.P.O, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678508 ``` ``` BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) ``` ## `RESPONDENT:` ``` STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031 ``` ## `OTHER PRESENT:` ``` SR PP SMT SEETHA S ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` _B.A.No.2692/2024_ _-:2:-_ _Dated this the 9[th] day of April, 2024_ ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the fifth accused in Crime No.163/2024 of the Cheruthuruthy Police Station, Thrissur, registered against the accused (five in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506, 500 & 294(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’). 3. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that: the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had induced the de-facto complainant by promising him that the first accused would marry him. They, _B.A.No.2692/2024_ _-:3:-_ accordingly, during the period from 26.03.2023 to 26.10.2023, received a total amount of Rs.27,67,000/-. Subsequently, the accused threatened the de-facto complainant, when demanded for the return of the money. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. V.A. Johnson (Varikkappallil), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. A reading of the Annexure-1 First Information Report [FIR] would substantiate that only the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC can be attributed against the petitioner. In fact, Annexure-1 FIR is a counterblast to the complaint that has been lodged by the first accused against the de-facto complainant for committing the offence under _B.A.No.2692/2024_ _-:4:-_ Section 376 of the IPC against her. It is after Crime No.1298/2023 was registered by the Alathur Police Station, that the de-facto complainant has lodged the present complaint against the petitioner and his relatives, including his sister, who is the first accused. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the petitioner may be granted an order of pre-arrest bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation is in progress. Nonetheless, she did not dispute the fact that Crime No.1298/2023 has been registered by the Alathur Police Station against the de-facto complainant for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC against the first accused in the present crime. She also stated that the investigation in the said crime has been completed and the final report _B.A.No.2692/2024_ ## _-:5:-_ has been filed. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. The prosecution allegation against the petitioner is that, in furtherance of his common intention with the other accused, he abused the de-facto complainant in obscene language. The principal allegation in Annexure-1 FIR is against the first accused, who dishonestly induced the de-facto complainant to pay her money, on her promise to get married to the de-facto complainant. However, the accused failed to return the money to the de-facto complainant and the first accused did not get married to him. The fact remains that, Crime No.1298/2023 has also been registered at the instance of the first accused against the de-facto complainant for allegedly committing the predicate offence under Section 376 of the IPC. 8. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the _B.A.No.2692/2024_ ## _-:6:-_ rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially on comprehending the fact that Annexure-2 FIR has been registered against the de-facto complainant for allegedly committing rape on the first accused in the present crime, Annexure-1 FIR would prima-facie substantiate that only the offence under Section 294(b) of the IPC will be attracted against the petitioner, that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail, but subject to the condition that he co-operates with the investigation. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: - (i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today; _-:7:-_ ## _B.A.No.2692/2024_ - (ii) In the event of the petitioner’s arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce him before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself; - (iii)On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; - (iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available to interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. - (v) The petitioner shall not intimidate witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner; - (vi) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while he is on bail. - (vii)The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if _B.A.No.2692/2024_ ## _-:8:-_ any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; - (viii)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. - (ix)Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. - (x) 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 petitioner even while the petitioner is 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]. _B.A.No.2692/2024_ ## _-:9:-_ - (xi) Any observations made in this order is only for the purpose of deciding the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** DST/09.04.24 //True copy// P.A. To Judge