Sudarsanan K, Dhanya M.S., Darsanth S, Sreejith M.S. v. State of Kerala & Walayar Police Station

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 4257 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.269/2024 OF WALAYAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:`** - **`1 SUDARSANAN K, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.KASU, SANKARANKANDATH HOUSE, KONANPUDUR, KANJIKKODE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678621`** - **`2 DHANYA M.S. AGED 46 YEARS W/O.SUDARSANAN, SANKARANKANDATH HOUSE,KONANPUDUR, KANJIKKODE P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678621`** - **`3 DARSANTH S, AGED 19 YEARS S/O.SUDARSANAN, SANKARANKANDATH HOUSE,KONANPUDUR, KANJIKKODE P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678621`** - **`4 SREEJITH M.S. AGED 41 YEARS S/O.SIVANANDAN, MELE HOUSE, ANAPPARA, KOTTEKKAD P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678621 BY ADV BABU S. NAIR`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER , WALAYAR POLICE STATION,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678624`** ## **`SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. NEEMA T.V`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.4257 of 2024 _-:2:-_ Dated this the 23[rd] day of July, 2024 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(‘Code’, for the sake of brevity), for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.269/2024 of the Walayar Police Station, Palakkad, registered against them for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 354 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 3. The essence of the prosecution case is that: on 30.3.2024, the accused 1 to 4 along with 15 identifiable persons had wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant/victim and outraged her modesty. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. Babu S. Nair., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Neema T.V., the B.A.No.4257 of 2024 _-:3:-_ learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. Annexure D FIR is totally frivolous and filed only for the purpose of wrecking vengeance on the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners 1, 2 and 4 had entered into an agreement of sale with the late husband of the victim and his siblings. Since the victim had backed out from the agreement of sale, her husband and his siblings had transferred their share to the petitioners 1, 2 and 4. Subsequently, the marital relationship between the victim and her late husband got strained, and she has filed O.P. No.279/2017 before the Family Court, Palakkad, for a declaratory decree, wherein the petitioners 1, 2 and 4 are also respondents. Subsequently, the victim’s husband died. Then, the victim had raised a claim to live in the property ## B.A.No.4257 of 2024 _-:4:-_ purchased by the petitioners 1 2 and 4. When she attempted to enter the property, the present incident occurred. Thereafter, it is only to pressurize the petitioners to yield to the unlawful demands of the victim, that she has lodged Annexure D FIR. The fact that there are civil disputes pending between the parties from the year 2017 onwards, proves the frivolity in the present crime. The petitioners are law abiding citizens and without any antecedents. The petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor formally opposed the application. She did not dispute the fact that there are disputes pending between the parties before the Family Court. 7. On an appreciation of the materials placed on record, I find that there are disputes pending between B.A.No.4257 of 2024 _-:5:-_ the victim and her former husband as well as petitioners 1, 2 and 4 right from 2017 onwards. A reading of Annexure B original petition shows that the petitioners are respondents in the said case. Indisputably, the victim’s husband died on 11.3.2024, which is evident from Annexure C death certificate. Subsequent to his death, Annexure D FIR has been registered on 1.4.2024. Therefore, I find sufficient force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is frivolity in the present litigation. 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 to grant orders of pre-arrest bail. It is categorically held that the Courts should carefully examine the complaints and see if there is any falsity and frivolity in the complaints, especially in family disputes. B.A.No.4257 of 2024 _-:6:-_ 9. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly considering the fact that Annexure B original petition is pending between the victim and the petitioners and it is after the death of the victim’s husband that Annexure D FIR has been registered, I am satisfied that the petitioners have made out valid grounds to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code. Hence, I hold that the petitioner 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. ## B.A.No.4257 of 2024 _-:7:-_ (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 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 B.A.No.4257 of 2024 _-:8:-_ 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. (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** B.A.No.4257 of 2024 _-:9:-_ ## **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/23/7/2024