Surya Lakshmi C K v. State of Kerala and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS`** ``` MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1946 ``` ## **`BAIL APPL. NO. 3835 OF 2024`** ## **`CRIME NO.217/2023 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SURYA LAKSHMI C K, AGED 39 YEARS ``` ``` D/O KRISHNAN NAIR,NIKUNJAM FLAT, FLAT NO. 3F, JAVAHAR NAGAR, KAVADIYAR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003 BY ADVS. P.DEEPTHI O.V.DEEPA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATAION, PATTALAM RD, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, VELIYANNUR, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680001`** - **`3 SHRIDUTH.P S/O PREMSHANKER, GOVINDA SMRITHI, JAWAHAR ROAD, THRISSUR IS IMPLEADED AS INTERVENOR AS PER ORDER DATED 13-6-24 IN CRL MA 1/24 BY ADVS. K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN S.RAJEEV N.P.ASHA V.VINAY M.S.ANEER PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH NOURIN S. FATHIMA K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN ANILKUMAR C.R.`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SMT NIMA JACOB PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ## **`22.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:`** B.A.No.3835 of 2024 -:2:- ## Dated this the 22[nd] 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 petitioner is presently the accused in Crime No.217/2023 of the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram (earlier registered as Crime No.646/2023 of the Town East Police Station, Thrissur), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324, 328, 323, 384 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The gist of the prosecution is that: the accused had a live-in-relationship with the de facto complainant/third respondent, and, thereafter, she demanded Rs.10/- Crore from him and blackmailed him that she would publish his photographs on social media. On 30.01.2023, the accused telephoned the de facto B.A.No.3835 of 2024 -:3:- complainant’s father, and demanded to pay the above amount, but he refused to pay any amount. Then, the accused under the pretext of settling the dispute, entered the apartment of the third respondent, gave him some posioness liquid, and then attempted to stab him on his neck. She also hit the third respondent, and he fell down on the ground. Thus, the accused has committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Smt. P. Deepthi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Nima Jacob, the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against her. In fact, the petitioner and the third respondent were in a live-in relationship, and a child is born in their relationship. When the petitioner applied for the birth certificate for the child by showing the third respondent as the father, he resisted B.A.No.3835 of 2024 -:4:- the same. Immediately, differences of opinion arose. The third respondent has brutally assaulted the petitioner and is registered Crime No. 182/2023 against the third respondent for allegedly committing the predicate offence under Section 328 of the IPC. It is as a counterblast to the said crime, that the third respondent has lodged the instant FIR against the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed O.P. No. 1127/2024 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, against the third respondent, to declare the paternity of the child born in their relationship. The third respondent hails from an influential background. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary, and no recovery is to be effected. Moreover, the petitioner is a young lady having three children. If the petitioner is arrested, she will be subject to custodial torture. 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 in the B.A.No.3835 of 2024 -:5:- case is in progress. She also stated that there are incriminating materials to substantiate that the petitioner has been continuously extorting money from the defacto complainant and she has caused hurt to him. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary, and the recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the third respondent also seriously opposed the application. He drew the attention of this Court to Annexure R3(a) FIR to show the nature of the accusations levelled against the petitioner. He also pointed out Annexure R3(e) to R3(g) treatment records of the defacto complainant to establish that the third respondent was hospitalised and treated in different hospitals. He stated that there are prima facie materials to show the petitioner’s involvement in the crime. The petitioner is deliberately trying to state that the third child belongs to the third respondent. He submitted that if the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, B.A.No.3835 of 2024 -:6:- there is every likelihood of her tampering with the evidence and also committing similar offences against other innocent persons. Therefore, the application may be dismissed. 8. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be seen that the petitioner had lodged Annexure A1 FIR on 19.02.2023 against the third respondent for allegedly committing the predicate offence under Section 328 of the IPC. It is subsequent to Annexure A1 FIR that Annexure A3 FIR was registered on 02.03.2023 by the third respondent, alleging that the petitioner has committed the predicate offence under Section 384 of the the IPC. The petitioner alleges that a child is born in the relationship between the petitioner and the third respondent, which is bluntly denied by the third respondent. Even though she applied for a birth certificate of the child showing the third respondent as the father of the child, he opposed the same. Now, she has filed O.P.No.1127/2024 for the declaration of the B.A.No.3835 of 2024 -:7:- paternity of the child, which is pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Apparently, there are disputes pending between the parties before the Civil Court, and also cases and counter-cases against the parties. Indisputably, the petitioner is a young lady and has three children. Other than for Annexure A3 FIR, the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. 8. In **Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra** [(2011) 1 SCC 694], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that there is no straitjacket formula for granting or refusing an order of anticipatory bail. The same has to be considered, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The courts have to always look into the nature and gravity of the accusations levelled against the accused and also see whether there is a likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating a similar offence. 9. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and B.A.No.3835 of 2024 -:8:- the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner and the third respondent have apparently been maintaining a live-in relationship, there are litigations between the parties in the Civil Court and a case and counter case against each other, and that the petitioner is a lady having three children, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out valid grounds entitling her to an order of pre-arrest bail. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail; subject to the condition that she cooperates with the Investigating Officer. 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. - (ii) In the event of the petitioner’s arrest, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each; ## B.A.No.3835 of 2024 -:9:- - (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. - (iv) The petitioner 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; - (v) The petitioner shall surrender her passport before the jurisdictional court concerned within a period of one week from the date of her release on bail. If she has no passport, she shall file an affidavit to the effect before said court within the said period; - (vi)The petitioner 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 B.A.No.3835 of 2024 -:10:- 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 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** mtk/22.07.24