Sudhakumari V. v. State of Kerala and Others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN`** ``` MONDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(CRL.) NO. 357 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SUDHAKUMARI V. AGED 52 YEARS W/O SHIBU L., RESIDING AT RAMA NILAYAM, KULATHUMMAL, KATTAKKADA, KURUTHAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695572 ``` ``` BY ADVS. R.N.SANDEEP KEERTHI VIJAYAN RAHUL S.R. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001` - `2 COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE TRAIL OF OFFENCES UNDER POCSO ACT, THALASSERY` - `REPRESENTED BY SIRASTHADAR, DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, THALASSERY OVER BRIDGE, PALISSERY, THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN - 670101` - `3 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001` - `4 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KANNUR CITY OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KANNUR CITY, TALAP, KANNUR, PIN - 670002` - `5 SUPERINTENDENT, SUB JAIL THALASSERY KANYAKUMARI - PANVEL HIGHWAY, THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN - 670101` - `6 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, THALIPARAMBA P.O., TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670141` ``` BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` SRI. SAIGI JACOB PALATTY-SR. GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(Crl) No.357/2023 1 ## ALEXANDER THOMAS & C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ. ================== WP(Crl) No.357/2023 ================== Dated this the 10[th] day of April, 2023 ## J U D G M E N T ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Criminal) seeking for Habeas Corpus are as follows: “a. Issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding and compelling the respondents to produce the corpus of the Jithesh S.S. before this Hon’ble Court and to set him free. b. pass such other writ order or direction that this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. c. to award the cost of this petition.” 2. Heard Sri.R.N.Sandeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 3. This case was admitted on 05.04.2023, on which day we passed a detailed order of granting interim relief and ordering the release of the petitioner from the Sub Jail concerned, provisionally and WP(Crl) No.357/2023 - : 2 :- subject to the result of this writ proceedings. The said detailed order dated 05.04.2023 reads as follows: “Admit WP(Crl.). 2. The learned Prosecutor has taken notices for all the respondents. Service complete. 3. It is urged by Sri.R.N.Sandeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, 2 false cases have been foisted on the alleged detenu (Sri.Jithish S.S., aged 24 years, son of the petitioner) for various offences, including offences under the POCSO Act, in which the first informant is a minor girl and the false cases have been so foisted on account of the animosity of her parents against the detenu. 4. Further that, the 1st crime was registered as Crime No. 758/2022 of Thaliparamba Police Station, for various offences including that of POCSO offences. That, the detenu was remanded on 28.6.2022, on account of his involvement in the first crime. The Special POCSO Court (The Court of the Special Judge for the trial of offences under POCSO Act, Thalassery) has granted him Regular Bail in the 1 st crime on 16.9.2022 and after execution of bail bond, etc., he was released. The 2nd crime was registered as Crime No. 1248/2022 of Thaliparamba Police Station, for similar offences. The detenu was remanded on 28.10.2022 in the 2nd crime. The Sessions Court had rejected his Regular Bail plea in the 2nd crime. However, this Court, as per Ext.P-1 order dated 31.3.2023 in B.A. No.2569/2023 found that, though the FIR mentions various offences, the FIS as well as the statement of the victim recorded under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. does not disclose any offences against the detenu and even the Final Report in the 2nd crime has been filed. Hence, this Court, as per Ext.P-1 order dated 31.3.2023 in B.A. No. 2569/2023 has granted him regular bail. The detenu has executed the requisite bail bonds and has furnished solvent sureties. However, he is not being released from the Sub Jail, Thalassery, where he is remanded. That, the said action of the authorities concerned in not releasing him in spite of Ext.P-1 Regular Bail order is illegal and ultra vires and hence, his detention is illegal, etc. 5. The learned Prosecutor was requested to get instructions. The learned Prosecutor has submitted that, he could secure telephonic instructions from the Police officials concerned, the Public Prosecutor concerned and the Jail authorities concerned. The instruction he has received is to the effect that, on account of the involvement of the detenu in the WP(Crl) No.357/2023 - : 3 :- 2nd crime, the prosecution agency has filed an application to cancel the bail in the 1st crime and the said application is pending. But, the continued detention of the detenu is not on account of that. That, the investigation in the 1st crime was completed and the Police had filed Final Report/Charge Sheet in the 1st crime, in which the Special POCSO Court had taken cognizance and issued summons, which led the institution of Sessions Case – S.C.No.773/2022 on the file of the Special POCSO Court, Thalassery. 6. After taking cognizance, summons was to be issued to the detenu, but that, at that time, it was noted that the detenu was already remanded in the 2nd crime and hence, production warrant was issued on 6.2.2023 to produce him before the POCSO Court on 9.2.2023, as the Court had taken cognizance in the 1st crime. That, when the detenu had appeared, the Court had enquired as to whether he is willing to take bail and since the detenu was not willing, the POCSO Court has remanded him for that reason and the said remand has been extended from time to time, including today, and the said Sessions Case arising out of the 1 st crime is now posted to 19.4.2023. 7. There is no dispute that the detenu could secure Regular Bail in the 1st crime and the said bail has not been cancelled so far in the manner known to law, eventhough the application for cancellation of bail is pending as above. There is also no dispute that the detenu has secured Regular Bail in the 2nd crime as well and he is said to have furnished bail bonds and solvent sureties for the same. It is also now well settled by various rulings of the Apex Court, including the celebrated decision of the Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. [(2020) 5 SCC 1, para 92.5], that, even an Anticipatory Bail granted in a case can continue after the filing of the Final Report/Charge Sheet and till the end of the trial, so long as the said bail order is not cancelled in the manner known to law. 8. So, there cannot be any legal dispute that even a Regular Bail so taken at the pre-trial stage will continue to have its efficacy till the trial is over, so long as the said Bail is not cancelled in the manner known to law. Hence, prima facie, if the facts are as stated above, the order of the POCSO Court in remanding the detenu, merely because he has not taken bail after taking cognizance in the case, is illegal and ultra vires inasmuch as the POCSO Court was bound to treat the Regular Bail secured by the detenu in the said 1st crime, which has now led to S.C.No. 773/2022, as continuing to have its efficacy till the trial is over or till the said bail is cancelled, in the manner WP(Crl) No.357/2023 - : 4 :- known to law, whichever is earlier. In other words, prima facie, we are of the view that the continued detention of the alleged detenu, even after securing Regular Bail in the 2nd crime and merely on account of the aspects stated above, is per se illegal and ultra vires, even though it is an act of a judicial authority. 9. Hence, after prima facie appreciation of the facts of the case, we are also inclined to hold that, the balance of convenience would also be tilted much in favour of the detenu inasmuch as the continued detention, which prima facie is without jurisdiction, cannot be countenanced in law. Accordingly, as an interim order, it is ordered that the respondents, more particularly, R-5 - The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Thalassery (where the detenu is now continuing as Remand Prisoner, as R.P.No.294/2022) shall be forthwith released, unless his detention is required in any case other than the aforesaid 2 crimes. 10. Further, it is made clear that the detenu is released on interim bail basis, based on the Regular Bail he has secured in the 1[st] crime and the bail conditions of the bail order of the 1st crime will be treated as conditions to regulate the interim bail, for the time being. In other words, without executing any bail bonds or furnishing solvent sureties, the respondents, more particularly, R-5 - The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Thalassery, shall forthwith release the detenu from prison. However, this order will be provisional and subject to the further orders of this Court. 11. The Registry will immediately get a report from the Special POCSO Court, Thalassery, who is dealing with S.C.No.773/2022 (arising out of the 1st crime, Crime No.758/2022 of Thaliparamba Police Station) as well as the case arising out of the 2nd crime, Crime No.1248/2022 of Thaliparamba Police Station, as to the reasons for the continued remand of the detenu. The report, as above, shall be furnished by the POCSO Court, Thalassery, by e-mail attachment and fax, so as to reach the Registry, well before the next posting day. 12. The Registrar concerned will intimate the POCSO Court, Thalassery, about this order for effecting compliance, without any delay. 13. The Registry and the Secretary to the office of the Advocate General will forward copy of this order to R-5 – The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Thalassery, for necessary information and immediate compliance.” 4. Now we are told by both sides that the petitioner has been WP(Crl) No.357/2023 - : 5 :- released by R5 Superintendent, Sub Jail, from Sub Jail, Thalassery in compliance with the order dated 05.04.2023 passed by this Court in this WP(Crl). 5. The Special POSCO Court concerned has furnished a report dated 09.04.2023 to the Registry of this Court in compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 05.04.2023. The said report dated 09.04.2023 of the POSCO Court, Thalassery, Kannur District reads as follows: “SC No.773/2022 is a case charge sheeted by the Inspector of Police, Taliparamba Police Station u/s.366, 370(4), 354A(1), 354D, 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC, Sec.5(1) r/w Sec.6, Sec.11(iv) r/w. Sec.12, and Sec.16(1)(3) r/w Sec.17 of the POCSO Act, 2012 in Crime No.758/2022. There are 2 accused in the above case. Accused No.1 Jitheesh S.S., S/o.Shibu was granted bail by this Court on 16.09.2022 as per the Order in Crl.MC No.1190/2022. After the filing of the charge sheet summons was issued to A1 and A2 to appear on 17.12.2022. On 17.02.2022, A2 was present and copies were furnished to him. Vakalath and petition were filed on behalf of A2 to permit him to continue on bail. It was reported by the Bench Clerk that A1 Jitheesh was served via e-mail. As there was no representation on his behalf and no application was filed to condone his absence, nonbailable warrant was issued against A1 and the case was posted to 23.01.2023. On 11.01.2023, the hearing was advanced as per the order in Crl.M.P.No.137/2023, and Crl.MP. No.138/2023 was filed by the Special Prosecutor to cancel the bail granted to A1, which was posted for counter to 23.01.2023, as I was on leave, the Judge of FTSC, Thalassery who was holding charge of this court had ordered a production warrant to be issued to produce A1 on 06.02.2023. On 06.02.2023, A2 was present and A1 was produced on Production warrant. Since no application was filed to recall the NBW issued against him or release him on bail A1 was remanded to Special Sub Jail, Thalassery till 09.02.2023. Thereafter his remand is being periodically extended. The case now stands posted to 19.04.2023. WP(Crl) No.357/2023 - : 6 :- Crime No.1248/2022 is seen registered by the Talimparamba Police u/s. 363, 354A(1)(i) IPC and Sec.7 r/w Sec.8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 on 27.10.2022. Jitheesh.S.S is the sole accused in this case. No application seeking bail was filed by him during the crime stage. Later chargesheet was filed u/s. 363, 354A(1)(i) IPC, 370(4) IPC, Sec.11(vi) r/w Sec.12 and Sec.7 r/w Sec.8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the case was taken on file as SC909/22. Thereafter he filed an application as Crl.M.P.50/2023 seeking bail which was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 12.01.2023. The Order of the Hon’ble High Court in B.A.2569/2023 dated 31.03.2023 was produced before me on 03.04.2023 along with solvent sureties and they were permitted to execute bonds. No release Order was issued as he is under judicial custody in SC No.773/2022 and no bail application was filed in that case. Hence, I hereby humbly submit that he continues to be under detention as no application was filed by him to recall the non bailable warrant and no application seeking bail or permitting him to continue on bail were filed thereafter.” 7. In this case, the petitioner has got himself involved in two crimes as mentioned earlier and for the sake of convenience, the first case would be referred as the first crime and the latter case will be referred for convenience as the 2[nd] crime. 8. A reading of the abovesaid report dated 09.04.2023, submitted by the Special POSCO Court, Thalassery would disclose the following factual aspects. 9. The petitioner was arrayed as A1 among the two accused in the first crime, viz, crime No.758/2022 of Thaliparamba Police Station, which was registered for offences punishable under Sec.366, 370(4), 354A(1), 354B, 376(2)(m), 376(3) of the IPC, Sec.5(1) read with Sec.6, WP(Crl) No.357/2023 - : 7 :- Sec.11(4) read with Sec.12 & Sec.16(1)(3), read with Sec.17 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The petitioner herein (A1) was granted bail in regard to his involvement in the first crime as per order dated 16.09.2022 rendered by the POSCO Special Court, Thalassery, as per order in Crl.MC No.1190/2022. 10. It is common ground that the petitioner (A1), in the first crime was thus released from the jail concerned, though he was earlier arrested and remanded in regard to his involvement in the first crime. 11. Later, the petitioner has been involved as the sole accused in the 2[nd] crime, viz, crime No.1248/2022 of Thaliparamba Police station for offences punishable under Sec.363, 354A(1)(i) of the IPC, Sec.7 read with Sec.8 of the POSCO Act, on 27.10.2022. It appears that the petitioner was arrested and remanded in regard to his involvement as the sole accused in the 2[nd] crime and he has not filed any application for regular bail, at the crime investigation stage. Later, it appears that the Police has completed his investigation and has filed a final report by way of charge sheet in the 2[nd] crime and the offences alleged therein are those punishable under Sec.363, 354A(1)(i), 370(4) of the IPC, Sec.11(6), read with Sec.12 and Sec.7 read with Sec.8 of the POSCO Act, 2012. The Special Court has taken cognizance of the offences which has WP(Crl) No.357/2023 - : 8 :- led to the pendency of Sessions Case SC No.909/2022. It appears that it is thereafter that the petitioner has filed regular bail application in the second crime as Crl.MA No.503/2023 before the Special Court, Thalassery, which was dismissed by the said Court vide order dated 12.01.2023. It is thereafter, the petitioner has filed regular bail application under Sec.439 of the CrPC before this Court, as Bail Application, BA No.2569/2023. This Court has passed Ext.P1 order dated 31.03.2023, disposing of BA No.2569/2023, granting regular bail to the petitioner in regard to his involvement as the sole accused in the 2[nd] crime. This Court has interalia noted the final report by way of charge sheet has already been filed in the second crime and so, this Court held in Ext.P1 order that there is no reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is necessary and hence, had granted him regular bail in the 2[nd] crime subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Thereafter, the petitioner has executed the bail bonds and had also furnished two solvent sureties, but the jail authorities has refused to release him pursuant to Ext.P1 order, since it was stated by them that the petitioner continues to be on judicial remand in regard to his involvement in the first crime and therefore, he cannot be released even though he has secured regular bail in the 2[nd] WP(Crl) No.357/2023 - : 9 :- crime as per Ext.P1 order. 12. Now, the report of the Special Court, Thalassery would disclose that after the petitioner had secured regular bail from the Special Court in regard to his involvement in the 1[st] crime, the investigation in the 1[st] crime was completed and final report by way of charge sheet has also been filed in the first crime. Further, it is seen that after filing of the final report/charge sheet in the 1[st] crime, summons was issued by the Special Court to both A1 (petitioner) and A2 in the said first crime to appear on 17.12.2022. Petitioner, as the sole accused in the 2[nd] crime was under judicial remand since 28.10.2022 as can be seen from a reading of para 6 on page 3 of Ext.P1 order passed by this Court in the 2[nd] crime. It is also evident from a reading of the report of the POCSO Court that the 2[nd] crime was registered on 27.10.2022. Therefore, it appears that after registration of the 2[nd] crime on 27.10.2022, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.10.2022 in regard to his involvement in the 2[nd] crime. It is also evident from Ext.P1 order that regular bail was refused by the Special Court on 12.01.2023 and regular bail was granted by this Court as per Ext.P1 order only on 31.01.2023, in regard to his involvement in the 2[nd] crime. So it appears that for the period WP(Crl) No.357/2023 - : 10 :- from 28.10.2022 and prior to Ext.P1 order dated 30.01.2023, the petitioner continued to be under judicial remand in the 2[nd] crime. It appears that when summons was issued after filing of the final report/charge sheet in the first crime, on 17.12.2022, this crucial aspect that the petitioner was already under judicial remand since 28.10.2022 in regard to his involvement in the 2[nd] crime was not disclosed by the Prosecution agency before the Special Court concerned. Whereas on receipt of the summons during the filing of the final report/charge sheet in the 1[st] crime, A2 had appeared and filed vakalath and had sought permission to allow him to continue on bail in the bail granted to him in the first crime. 13. The Special Court, Thalassery, on enquiry found that A1 therein (petitioner) was served summons by email and as there was no representation on his behalf and no application was filed to condone his absence, non-bailable warrant (NBW) was issued against A1 in the 1[st] crime and the case was posted to 23.01.2023. Further, on 11.01.2023, the hearing was advanced in regard to the non-appearance of the petitioner in the 1[st] crime as per order in Crl.MP No.137/2023. In the meanwhile, the Special Prosecutor had also filed Crl.M.P No.138/2023 before the Special Court praying that the bail granted to WP(Crl) No.357/2023 - : 11 :- the petitioner in the 1[st] crime be cancelled due to his involvement in the 2[nd] crime as such involvement in the 2[nd] crime amounted to a violation in the bail conditions in the 1[st] crime which directed the petitioner, not to involve in any other crimes. The bail cancellation application in the 1[st] crime filed as per Crl.M.P No.138/2023 was posted for counter to 23.01.2023. On 23.01.2023, the regular Judge concerned was on leave, and the Judge concerned, holding additional charge, had ordered production warrant to be issued to produce A1 on 06.02.2023 in regard to his involvement in the first crime, as he had not appeared earlier after issuance of summons consequent to the cognizance taken on account of the final report/charge sheet filed therein. On 06.02.2023, A2 was present and A1 was produced on production warrant. The report of the Special Court would indicate that since no formal application was filed to recall the NBW issued against him or release him on bail, A1 was remanded to special sub jail, Thalassery till 09.02.2023 and thereafter his remand in regard to the involvement in the first crime be periodically extended and the case was last posted to 19.04.2023. A reading of the said report would clearly indicate that the Prosecution Agency has not disclosed the crucial and highly relevant fact to the Special Court that the petitioner was on judicial remand WP(Crl) No.357/2023 - : 12 :- since 28.10.2022 onwards, on account of the involvement in the 2[nd] crime and that therefore, it was impossible for him to appear before the said Court consequent to the summons issued after filing of the final report/charge sheet in the first crime. It is only on account of this crucial suppression of material facts that the Special Court had earlier issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner, in the first crime and had later remanded into judicial custody in the first crime as he had not filed a formal application either to recall the NBW or for granting him fresh bail in the first crime. Ordinarily in a case of this nature, the matter would have been ideally dealt with in a proceedings under Sec.482 of CrPC. We have passed the order dated 05.04.2023 based on the instructions furnished by the Police authorities to the learned Prosecutor. 14. The full factual details are now available before this Court consequent to the filing of the report dated 09.04.2023 by the Special Court concerned. The undisputed facts would clearly disclose that the Prosecution Agency owed a duty to disclose to the Special Court that petitioner was under judicial remand since 28.02.2022 in the 2[nd] crime and therefore it was well nigh impossible for him to appear, consequent to the summons issued in the first crime after filing of final WP(Crl) No.357/2023 - : 13 :- report/charge sheet in the said first case. If that crucial and relevant fact had been disclosed to the special Court, then the Court would have ordinarily issued the production warrant and thereafter, the matter could have been dealt with in accordance with law. It is by now well established by a series of rulings by the Apex Court, including the celebrated decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2020) 5 SCC 1] , that even an anticipatory bail granted to an accused at the pre-trial stage, can continue to have legal efficacy till the disposal of the trial and its life cannot be ordinarily curtailed till the investigation is over. Regular bail so granted to the petitioner in the first crime, will stand on a higher pedestal or atleast on an equal basis, compared to the anticipatory bail granted. Therefore it goes without saying that the regular bail secured by the applicant in the first crime will continue to have its efficacy till the trial is over or till the bail granted in the first crime is cancelled in the manner known to law, whichever is earlier. In the light of these aspects, and taking note of the peculiar facts of this case, we are of the view that the availability of alternate remedy by itself may not be treated as a bar for entertaining its writ plea for Habeas Corpus especially taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this WP(Crl) No.357/2023 - : 14 :- case. It appears that petitioner is a young man aged 24 years, has not secured proper legal assistance. The police has suppressed the crucial fact that he was under judicial remand in the second crime since 28.10.2022 and therefore it was impossible for him to appear consequent to the service of summons in the first crime after filing of the final report/charge sheet in the said first crime. In the light of these aspects, and taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the issuance of the non-bailable warrant by the Special Court in regard to the involvement of the petitioner in the first crime on 17.12.2022 and the remand ordered subsequently appears to be illegal and unlawful. The Special Court has passed that order only because of the suppression of material facts at the instance of the Prosecution. Now, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 05.04.2023, petitioner has already been released by R5 from the Sub Jail, Thalassery, subject to the result of this Writ Petition (Criminal). In the light of these aspects and taking note of the illegality committed by the Prosecution, there is no necessity to remit the matter to the Special Court concerned and therefore, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner on 17.12.2022 consequent to his non-appearance after WP(Crl) No.357/2023 **==> picture [36 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** service of summons in the first crime will stand recalled and cancelled. So also, the subsequent order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the Special Court, Thalassery, remanding him to Sub Jail, Thalassery, as he had not filed an application to recall the NBW or release him on bail will also stand cancelled and recalled. The abovesaid orders passed by this Court in the matter of recall of the NBW issued on 17.12.2022 in the first crime and the setting aside of the remand order dated 06.02.2023 are rendered by this Court subject to the condition that petitioner should appear before the Court below as and when required and he shall also fully co-operate with the trial process. His release on bail in the first crime will be fully regulated by the bail conditions attached to the bail order dated 16.09.2022 rendered by the Special Court, Thalassery, in regard to the involvement of the petitioner in the first crime. It is made clear that the regular bail granted to the petitioner in the first crime will continue to have its efficacy till the trial is over or till the regular bail granted in the first crime is canceled in the manner known to law. We make it clear that the issues, relating to the application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner in the first crime will have to be independently decided by the Special Court in accordance with law and without being influenced in any manner with WP(Crl) No.357/2023 **==> picture [36 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the observations in this order. 15. We further make it clear that the directions in this case have been issued only in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and it is also made clear that this decision will not be taken as a precedent. With these observations and directions, the above WP(Crl) will stand finally disposed of. sd/- ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE sd/- C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE Nsd ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 357/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2023 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2569 OF 2023 ```