Sadasivan and others v. State of Kerala and Station House Officer, Punalur Police Station; Priyanka Prabhakar (Addl. R3 impleaded)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/20TH ASWINA 1934** **Bail Appl..No. 5708 of 2012 (C)** **------------------------------------------[CRIME NO.1080/2012 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT] ............** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 2 TO 5:** **-------------------------------------------------------** **1. SADASIVAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, 'THEJAS', VALACODU P.O, PUNALUR.** **2. ANJU, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.SADASIVAN, 'SNEHA', KUTHIRACHIRA, PUNALUR.** **3. THULASI BHAI, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.SADASIVAN, 'THEJAS', VALACODU P.O, PUNALUR.** **4. DINESH A.S, AGED 39 YEARS,** - **S/O.SASIDHARAN, 'SNEHA', KUTHIRACHIRA, PUNALUR.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV, SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN.** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** **----------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031, (CRIME NO. 1080/2012 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT).** **2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 305, (CRIME NO. 1080/2012 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT).** **B.A. NO.5708/2012-C:** ## ***ADDL. R.3. IMPLEADED:** ## **3. PRIYANKA PRABHAKAR,** **D/O. PRABHAKARAN, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT `BEENA BHAVAN', T.C.30/1876, KANNAMOOLA, PETTA.P.O., PETTA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ***ADDL. R.3. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/10/2012 IN CRL.M.A. NO.5376/2012.** **R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S. SREEJITH, ADDL. R3 BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN, SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN.** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2012, ALONG WITH B.A. NO.5982/2012, THE COURT ON 12/10/2012 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **P. BHAVADASAN, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. Nos. 5708 & 5982 of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12[th] day of October, 2012. ## **ORDER** B.A. No.5982 of 2012 is filed by the husband of the defacto complainant, while B.A. 5708 of 2012 is by the parents of the petitioner in B.A. 5982 of 2012. In both these applications, the respective petitioners seek anticipatory bail. 2. The marriage between the defacto complainant and the petitioner in B.A. 5982 of 2012 took place on 2.2.2006. The defacto complainant is a B.Tech. Degree holder, while her husband is an M.Tech. Degree holder from I.I.T. Madras. The main allegation in the complaint which was filed before the JFCM Court and which was forwarded for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is that the defacto complainant was being continuously harassed and humiliated demanding more and more dowry. The allegation appears to be that at the B.A. Nos.5708 & 5982/2012. 2 time of fixation of marriage, the in-laws of the defacto complainant represented as if they were unconcerned anything that was to be given to the defacto complainant. But, after the marriage fixation ceremony was over, it is alleged that they had shown their true colour when they insisted that it be let known to them what was intended to be given to the defacto complainant at the time of marriage. This annoyed the defacto complainant and her family and they decided to call off the marriage. Coming to know about the same, it is stated that the petitioners apologized for the misunderstanding caused and asserted that they were totally unconcerned about what was being given to the defacto complainant at the time of marriage. 3. After the marriage was over, on the very same day of marriage itself, it is alleged that the in-laws wanted the defacto complainant to hand over all her gold ornaments to them. There are allegations of usual nature of continuous harassment, ill-treatment and humiliation and B.A. Nos.5708 & 5982/2012. 3 ultimately the defacto complainant being deprived of her ornaments. It is alleged in the petition that the husband of the defacto complainant has worked in several countries. At the time when the couple was in Sharja, both were employed in the same company and the allegation is that when she used to get encomium for her work, it could not be tolerated by her husband which resulted in physical ill-treatment of the defacto complainant. It is also alleged that her salary was being drawn by her husband, who used to hand it over to his parents and she was left with no savings. Then there is a long narration of various acts and cruelty committed by the in-laws and her husband including physical assault. The trauma at the time when she conceived, and at the time of her delivery and thereafter are also narrated in detail in the complaint filed before the JFCM Court which in fact runs to several pages. 4. Based on the allegations in the complaint, Crime No.1080 of 2012 was registered in Punalur Police B.A. Nos.5708 & 5982/2012. 4 Station for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 307, 323, 324, 327, 330, 329, 343, 346, 352, 354, 406, 498A read with Section 34 I.P.C. 5. Petitioners in these petitions would deny the allegations contained in the complaint and would accuse the defacto complainant as a spoiled child of her parents. According to the petitioners, she used to get agitated on slightest pretext and it became extremely difficult to carry on life with her. According to the petitioners, except for some minor quarrel and squabbles, there was not much of difference of opinion between the couple. The trouble in fact started when the parents and other relatives of the defacto complainant began to meddle with the family life of the couple. Unnecessary and uncalled for interference by the members of the family of the defacto complainant in the marital life of the couple caused further trouble in their marital life and their relationship went from bad to worse. According to the petitioners, the allegations of ill-treatment, 5 B.A. Nos.5708 & 5982/2012. humiliation, physical assault are only made for the purpose of the petition are not true. They apprehend arrest in Crime No.1080 of 2012 and therefore they seek anticipatory bail. 6. Two highly educated persons entered into a marital life. One would have expected them to be understandable and tolerant. But it turned out to be otherwise. One fact is very clear that the marital life is irretrievably damaged and a reunion looks virtually impossible. Though the matter was sent mediation, it did not meet with success. 7. The allegations in the complaint are indeed very grave and serious. But as noticed by the Apex Court in the decision reported in **Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand** ((2010) 7 SCC 667), it is difficult in such cases of harassment to ascertain the veracity of the allegations and counter allegations. In fact, the Apex Court observed as follows: B.A. Nos.5708 & 5982/2012. 6 “35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to B.A. Nos.5708 & 5982/2012. 7 remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, who got herself impleaded in these proceedings very vehemently contended that the life with her husband is inconceivable and he is using her as a 'punching bag'. Learned Senior Counsel emphasized that the physical assaults were so severe and cruel, that it was virtually impossible to continue life with her husband. In fact, according to the learned counsel, the defacto complainant had to undergo treatment for the various injuries suffered by her at the hands of her husband and things got so worse that she even developed mental problems. In such circumstances, the petitioners do not deserve any sympathy at all. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that as has been observed by the Apex Court in B.A. Nos.5708 & 5982/2012. 8 the decision referred to above, all sorts of allegations are seen made against her husband and his parents. May be, according to the learned counsel, there were petty quarrels and differences of opinion between the couple. But he denied that there was any physical assault or such cruel acts which caused injuries to the defacto complainant. Even now, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the family of the husband of the defacto complainant is willing to accept the complainant, provided she is willing to lead a normal life. 10. It is virtually impossible at this point of time to ascertain wherein lies the truth. Both raise allegations and counter allegations against each other. Of course, if the allegations in the complaint are true, it is indeed cruel and inhuman. But the question is are they true? In the CD produced for perusal of this court, the photographs of the lady at the time of marriage wearing tonnes of gold ornaments and also the photographs of the bruises on the B.A. Nos.5708 & 5982/2012. 9 body of the defacto complainant are seen. As regards what had actually transpired, there are two versions given by the defacto complainant and the family members of her husband. Even after going through the CD, it is not possible at this point of time to come to the conclusion as to who is at fault. 11. It is significant to notice that the mediation did not succeed, that means that the couple is not willing for a reunion and a patch up is virtually out of question. 12. Then the question is whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners. As already noticed, the allegations are indeed serious and the offences attributed to the petitioners are indeed grave. Normally, this court is extremely reluctant in cases of allegations of such offences to grant anticipatory bail to the accused persons. But one has to remember in this case that the court is dealing with the family life of two persons. At any rate, even though the mediation has failed, the court can B.A. Nos.5708 & 5982/2012. 10 still hope that wisdom may dawn on the parties and it may be that after some time possibility of reunion need not be ruled out. If as a matter of fact the petitioners are send to jail and are remanded to custody by the court concerned, that would only worsen the relationship and increase the spite in the mind of the petitioners. The situation would then be irretrievably lost. On the other hand, possible avoidance of incarceration may induce some wisdom on both parties, so that they may, though late, try to patch up the differences and continue the marital relationship between the defacto complainant and the first petitioner. 13. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, and the possibility of a reunion, even though it looks difficult at this point of time, induces this court to grant relief to the petitioners. These applications are allowed as follows: B.A. Nos.5708 & 5982/2012. 11 i) Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.1080 of 2012 on or before 16.10.2012, who after interrogation shall produce them before the JFCM court concerned, which court, on applications for bail being moved by the petitioners, shall release them on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the JFCM concerned. ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced by the sureties for the purpose of executing the bond. B.A. Nos.5708 & 5982/2012. 12 iii) Petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. iv) Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses. v) The petitioner in B.A. No.5982 of 2012 shall surrender his passport before the JFCM court concerned. vi) Petitioners shall not leave the limits of Kollam District without the prior sanction of the JFCM concerned. B.A. Nos.5708 & 5982/2012. 13 vii) Petitioners shall not directly or indirectly cause threats to the life of the defacto complainant or the members of her family. viii) If any condition is violated, bail granted to the petitioners shall stand cancelled, and the JFCM concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.