High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeGranted pre-arrest bail subject to specified co...
SREEJESH KUMAR, CHANDRIKA HARIDAS, SREEKALA P.KUMAR, PRASANNA KUMAR.S v. STATE OF KERALA
Case / Petition Number:4350 of 2024
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- C.S. DIAS
- Judgment Date
- 2024-06-03
- Court Decision / Holding
- The application is allowed; pre-arrest bail is granted subject to conditions: (i) surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days; (ii) bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount; (iii) appearance for interrogation as directed; (iv) neither induce nor tamper with witnesses; (v) surrender passports within one week; (vi) refrain from other offences; (vii) court can cancel/bail modification on violation; (viii) Investigating Officer may proceed with recoveries if necessary; (ix) pending family court litigation acknowledged; the court clarifies this is only for bail and does not decide merits; order emphasizes cooperation with the police and notes exceptional grounds under S.438 CrPC.
- Final Disposition
- Granted pre-arrest bail subject to specified conditions
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- SREEJESH KUMAR
- CHANDRIKA HARIDAS
- SREEKALA P.KUMAR
- PRASANNA KUMAR.S
Respondents
- State of Kerala, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Kochi, PIN - 682031
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Adv H. Praveen (Kottarakkara)
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri C.S. Hrithwik, Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC before the Kerala High Court concerning four accused in Crime No. 312/2024 of Keezhvaipur Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The petitioners—J. 1 Sreejesh Kumar, 2 Chandrika Haridas, 3 Sreekala P. Kumar, and 4 Prasanna Kumar S.—are charged with offences under IPC sections including 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 323 (causing hurt), 451 (house-trespass) and 354 read with 34. The prosecution alleges that the first accused, husband of the defacto complainant, and his mother (2nd accused) misappropriated 30 sovereigns of gold and later assaulted the complainant in 2024; mediation attempts by the accused were thwarted, and further injuries were caused. Ongoing family court litigation (OP(G&W) Nos. 159/2024, 150/2024, etc.) is cited. The court relies on Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat (2015 KHC 4579) to outline anticipatory bail principles in family disputes, emphasizing careful examination of complaints, the gravity of charges, and the need to avoid undue harassment while ensuring fair investigation. The court notes estrangement and pending matrimonial disputes, finds custodial interrogation unnecessary, and grants pre-arrest bail subject to conditions, including cooperation with police and other safeguards. The order clarifies that it does not express any view on merits.
Provisions of Law Cited
Sec. 438 CrPCIPC Sections 498A, 406, 323, 451, 354 r/w 34
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Principles for anticipatory bail laid down in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat (2015 KHC 4579): (i) examine whether the complaint is false/frivolous and whether there is a family dispute; (ii) record valid reasons in the case diary; (iii) evaluate the facts and the exact role; (iv) avoid inflexible restrictions on S. 438; (v) interim bail with notice to the Public Prosecutor; (vi) Court may cancel bail for new material; (vii) no need to surrender again if released on anticipatory bail; (viii) discretion must be exercised with care; (ix) no rigid guidelines; (x) factors to consider including gravity, antecedents, flight risk, tampering, genuineness of prosecution, and potential harassment; and the presumption of innocence and limited interference with investigation.
- parties":{"respondents":["State of Kerala, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Kochi"],"applicants":["SREEJESH KUMAR","CHANDRIKA HARIDAS","SREEKALA P.KUMAR","PRASANNA KUMAR.S"]},
- lawyers":{"applicants":["Adv. H. Praveen (Kottarakkara)"],"respondents":["Sri C.S. Hrithwik, Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala"]},
- arguments":{"applicants":"The petitioners contend they are innocent and allege that Annexure A1 FIR is false and that ongoing Family Court litigations (A2, A3) indicate a civil/matrimonial dispute rather than a criminal conspiracy. They argue custodial interrogation is unnecessary and that bail would not impede investigation, especially given estranged relations and pressure tactics claimed by the complainant. They seek pre-arrest bail to protect liberty while cooperating with police under conditions.","respondents":"The State contends that investigation is ongoing and that arrest may be avoided only on stringent conditions if warranted. It notes genuine matrimonial disputes and the serious nature of the offences, and argues that bail should not frustrate investigation or enable tampering with witnesses. It accepts that relationships are strained but emphasizes the need to safeguard the investigation and complainant’s safety."},
- court_decision":"The application is allowed; pre-arrest bail is granted subject to conditions: (i) surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days; (ii) bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount; (iii) appearance for interrogation as directed; (iv) neither induce nor tamper with witnesses; (v) surrender passports within one week; (vi) refrain from other offences; (vii) court can cancel/bail modification on violation; (viii) Investigating Officer may proceed with recoveries if necessary; (ix) pending family court litigation acknowledged; the court clarifies this is only for bail and does not decide merits; order emphasizes cooperation with the police and notes exceptional grounds under S.438 CrPC.
- bench":"Single Judge","case_disposition":"Granted pre-arrest bail subject to specified conditions",
- cited_cases":[{
- citated_case_name":"Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another","citation_number":"2015 KHC 4579","treatment":"Positive","explanation":"Court cites this decision for anticipatory bail principles in family disputes and the need to assess complaint legitimacy and investigate without harassment."},{"citated_case_name":"Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) And another","citation_number":"2020 (1) KHC 663","treatment":"Positive","explanation":"Used to support structured guidelines for anticipatory bail and exercise of judicial discretion."},{"citated_case_name":"Sushila Aggarwal v. State","citation_number":null,"treatment":"Positive","explanation":"Supreme Court bail principles cited to balance investigation needs with individual liberty."}]} } } } } } }} } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } }}
- analysis_note_1_text_to_preserve_formatting_stuff_end
- analysis_note_text_placeholder_end
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend they are innocent and allege that Annexure A1 FIR is false and that ongoing Family Court litigations (A2, A3) indicate a civil/matrimonial dispute rather than a criminal conspiracy. They argue custodial interrogation is unnecessary and that bail would not impede investigation, especially given estranged relations and pressure tactics claimed by the complainant. They seek pre-arrest bail to protect liberty while cooperating with police under conditions.
Contentions of Respondents
The State contends that investigation is ongoing and that arrest may be avoided only on stringent conditions if warranted. It notes genuine matrimonial disputes and the serious nature of the offences, and argues that bail should not frustrate investigation or enable tampering with witnesses. It accepts that relationships are strained but emphasizes the need to safeguard the investigation and complainant’s safety.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another | 2015 KHC 4579 | Positive | Court cites this decision for anticipatory bail principles in family disputes and the need to assess complaint legitimacy and investigate without harassment. |
| Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) And another | 2020 (1) KHC 663 | Positive | Used to support structured guidelines for anticipatory bail and exercise of judicial discretion. |
| Sushila Aggarwal v. State | — | Positive | Supreme Court bail principles cited to balance investigation needs with individual liberty. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against SREEJESH KUMAR, CHANDRIKA HARIDAS, SREEKALA P.KUMAR, PRASANNA KUMAR.S v. STATE OF KERALA and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS**
**MONDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946**
## **BAIL APPL. NO. 4350 OF 2024**
**CRIME NO.312/2024 OF Keezhvaipur Police Station, Pathanamthitta PETITIONER/S:**
- **1 SREEJESH KUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. HARIDAS M.P., SREERANGAM HOUSE, MADATHUMBHAGOM WEST P.O., KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -, PIN - 689543**
- **2 CHANDRIKA HARIDAS,AGED 71 YEARS, SREERANGAM HOUSE, MADATHUMBHAGOM WEST P.O., KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -, PIN - 689543**
- **3 SREEKALA P.KUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, SREERANGAM HOUSE, MADATHUMBHAGOM WEST P.O., KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -, PIN - 689543**
- **4 PRASANNA KUMAR.S, AGED 56 YEARS, SREERANGAM HOUSE, MADATHUMBHAGOM WEST P.O., KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -, PIN - 689543**
**BY ADV H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)**
## **RESPONDENT/S:**
**STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, PIN - 682031**
## **OTHER PRESENT:**
## **SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK**
**THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
BAIL APPL. NO. 4350 OF 2024
2
## **O R D E R**
The application is filed under Sec.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.312/2024 of the Keezhvaipur Police Station, Pathanamthitta, registered against the accused, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 451, 354 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC').
3. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that: the 1[st] accused is the husband of the defacto complainant. They were married as early as on 25.11.2012. While the defacto complainant was living in the matrimonial home, the 1[st] accused along with the 2[nd] accused, who is the mother of the 1[st] accused, misappropriated 30 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to the defacto complainant. Thereafter, on 09.02.2024, the 1[st] accused assaulted the defacto complainant in their bedroom with his hands and kicked on her abdomen. Subsequently, on 10.03.2024, the
BAIL APPL. NO. 4350 OF 2024
3
1[st] accused along with the accused 3 and 4 went to the defacto complainant's home for mediation. But the father of the defacto complainant did not permit them to enter the house. They assaulted her and caused injuries to her. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
4. Heard; Sri.Praveen Harikumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations leveled against them. A reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate the falsity in the crime. In fact Annexures A2 and A3 litigations are pending between the parties before the Family Court, Thiruvalla. It is only as a pressure tactic that the defacto complainant has lodged Annexure A1 FIR, which is totally frivolous. The defacto complainant's sole intention is to harass the petitioners. The petitioners' custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the petitioners
BAIL APPL. NO. 4350 OF 2024
4
are entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. He stated that if the petitioners are granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it may hamper with the investigation of the case. Nonetheless, he did not dispute the fact that the 1[st] petitioner and the defacto complainant were married in the year 2012 and that there are ongoing matrimonial litigations between the parties.
7. Indisputably the 1[st] petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. Their marriage was solemnised on 25.11.2012, i.e., nearly twelve years back. Annexure A1 FIR is registered on 08.05.2024 in connection with certain incidents that occurred from 2012 onwards. Annexures A2 and A3 are the ongoing litigations between the parties before the Family Court, Thiruvalla.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs State of Gujarat and another**
[2015 KHC 4579] has categorically laid down the
BAIL APPL. NO. 4350 OF 2024
5
principles for the purpose of granting orders of pre-arrest bail in cases involving in family disputes. It is apposite to extract the relevant portion of the judgment, which reads thus:
“23. The principles which can be culled out, for the purposes of the instant case, can be stated as under:
(i) The complaint filed against the accused needs to be thoroughly examined, including the aspect whether the complainant has filed a false or frivolous complaint on earlier occasion. The Court should also examine the fact whether there is any family dispute between the accused and the complainant and the complainant must be clearly told that if the complaint is found to be false or frivolous, then strict action will be taken against him in accordance with law. If the connivance between the complainant and the Investigating Officer is established then action be taken against the investigating officer in accordance with law.
(ii) The gravity of charge and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended. Before arrest, the arresting officer must record the valid reasons which have led to the arrest of the accused in the case diary. In exceptional cases, the reasons could be recorded immediately after the arrest, so that while dealing with the bail application, the remarks and observations of the arresting officer can also be properly evaluated by the Court.
(iii) It is imperative for the Courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion to grant bail must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In cases where the Court is of the considered view that the accused has joined the investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre - conviction stage or post - conviction stage.
(iv) There is no justification for reading into S.438 CrPC
BAIL APPL. NO. 4350 OF 2024
6
the limitations mentioned in S.437 CrPC. The plentitude of S.438 must be given its full play. There is no requirement that the accused must make out a "special case" for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. This virtually, reduces the salutary power conferred by S.438 CrPC to a dead letter. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints and conditions on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail.
(v) The proper course of action on an application for anticipatory bail ought to be that after evaluating the averments and accusations available on the record if the Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail then an interim bail be granted and notice be issued to the Public Prosecutor. After hearing the Public Prosecutor the Court may either reject the anticipatory bail application or confirm the initial order of granting bail. The Court would certainly be entitled to impose conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail. The Public Prosecutor or the complainant would be at liberty to move the same Court for cancellation or modifying the conditions of anticipatory bail at any time if liberty granted by the Court is misused. The anticipatory bail granted by the Court should ordinarily be continued till the trial of the case.
(vi) It is a settled legal position that the Court which grants the bail also has the power to cancel it. The discretion of grant or cancellation of bail can be exercised either at the instance of the accused, the Public Prosecutor or the complainant, on finding new material or circumstances at any point of time.
(vii) In pursuance of the order of the Court of Session or the High Court, once the accused is released on anticipatory bail by the Trial Court, then it would be unreasonable to compel the accused to surrender before the Trial Court and again apply for regular bail.
(viii) Discretion vested in the Court in all matters should be exercised with care and circumspection depending upon the facts and circumstances justifying its exercise. Similarly, the discretion vested with the Court under S.438 CrPC should also be exercised with caution and prudence. It is unnecessary to travel beyond it and subject the wide power and discretion conferred by the Legislature to a rigorous code of self - imposed limitations.
(ix) No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be
BAIL APPL. NO. 4350 OF 2024
7
clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with Legislative intention, the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
(x) We shall also reproduce para 112 of the judgment wherein the Court delineated the following factors and parameters that need to be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail:
(a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(d) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;
(e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;
(g) The Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The Court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of S.34 and S.149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the Court should consider with even greater care and caution, because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(h) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(i) The Court should consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail”.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4350 OF 2024
8
On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially taking note of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforecited decision and on comprehending the fact that the litigation between the parties are pending before the competent Family Court and further that the relationship between the parties is estranged, I am of the view that the petitioners' custodial interrogation is not necessary. However, that is a matter to be investigated by the Police and decided at the time of trial. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that the petitioners have made out exceptional grounds to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, I am inclined to allow the application 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:
BAIL APPL. NO. 4350 OF 2024
9
- (i) The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today.
- (ii) In the event of the petitioners' arrest, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioners on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) 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 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
BAIL APPL. NO. 4350 OF 2024
10
on bail. If they have no passport, they shall file affidavits 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.
- (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**
BAIL APPL. NO. 4350 OF 2024
11
## **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/-
rkc/03.06.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**
BAIL APPL. NO. 4350 OF 2024
12
## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4350/2024**
## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES**
**Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 312/2024 OF KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DATED 08/05/2024**
**Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF OP(G&W) NO. 159/2024 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA DATED 21/03/2024 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 2/2024 IN OP(G&W) NO. 150/2024 FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA DATED 25/03/2024 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE 1 ST PETITIONER TO I.A. NO. 2/2024 IN OP(G&W) NO. 150/2024 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA DATED 04/05/2024**