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. 4875 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.731/2024 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, ``` ## **`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** ``` PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SURYA LAKSHMI C K AGED 39 YEARS D/O KRISHNAN NAIR, NIKUNJAM FLAT, FLAT NO. 3F, JAVAHAR NAGAR, KOWDIAR 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 MUSEUM POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033`** - **`3 JOSHY P MATHEW 16-D NOYAL ARCADIA, PADUMUGHAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 682030 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 01.07.2024 IN CRL.M.A.NO.2/2024 BY ADVS. RAJESH KUMAR T.N.BINDU JIJO JOSE ABHISHEK RHUTHWIK KRISHNA MANOJ V GEORGE`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` PP SMT NIMA JACOB ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.4875 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 the sole accused in Crime No.731/2024 of the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which is registered against her for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused had developed a friendship with the defacto complainant from 2010 onwards. During the years, they had physical relations on multiple occasions with her consent. In the year 2017, the accused claimed that the defacto complainant is the father of the new born daughter and subjected him to mental and physical harassment. She demanded Rs. 15/- lakh to B.A.No.4875 of 2024 -:3:- redeem a family property and later demanded Rs.25/lakh. When the defacto complainant refused to pay the said amount, the accused demanded him to buy an apartment for Rs. 2,25,00,000/-. Additionally, the accused also forced the defacto complainant to take an insurance policy in her and the child’s names for Rs. 2/lakh and 5/- lakh, respectively. In March 2024, the accused, under the pretence of settling the matter with the defacto complainant, demanded Rs. 1,50,000/-. The accused has been continuously extorting and receiving crores of rupees from the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence. 4. Heard; Smt. P. Deepthi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Nima Jacob, the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri. T.K. Rajeshkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/third respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the B.A.No.4875 of 2024 -:4:- accusations levelled against her. The third respondent has deliberately filed the present crime to pressurise the petitioner to yield to his unlawful demands. The petitioner and the third respondent had a live-inrelationship, and have a child born in their relationship, which is evidenced by Annexure A1 birth certificate. It is only for the purpose of avoiding the third respondent’s liability to maintain the child, he has filed the present crime. The petitioner has two other children born in another relationship. She is finding it difficult to make both ends meet. The present crime has been registered at the instance of certain influential persons who are trying to do away the life of the petitioner. In any given case, the petitioner's custodial is not and no interrogation necessary, recovery is to be effected. Hence, the application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She submitted that the investigation in the B.A.No.4875 of 2024 -:5:- case is still in progress. She also stated that there are incriminating materials to substantiate that the petitioner has committed the above offence. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper the investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent also seriously opposed the application. He submitted that the petitioner has been continuously extorting money from the third respondent and has committed the above offence. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, there is every likelihood of her tampering with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 8. The prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner and the third respondent were in a live-inrelationship from 2012 onwards. From 2017 onwards, the petitioner has repeatedly extorting money from the B.A.No.4875 of 2024 -:6:- third respondent and threatening him that she would get him implicated in several cases. Accordingly, the petitioner has received substantial money from the third respondent. 9. On an evaluation of the materials on record, it can be gathered that the petitioner and the third respondent were allegedly in a live-in-relationship. Annexure A1 Birth Certificate prima facie shows that they have a child born in their relationship on 01.05.2017. The genuineness and veracity of Annexure A1 is a matter to be investigated and ultimately decided at the time of trial. Likewise, I find that in Annexure A4 sale agreement, the petitioner and the third respondent had jointly entered into an agreement for sale with a builder to purchase an apartment. Going by the prima facie materials on record, it can be seen that there was a relationship between the parties. Indisputably, the petitioner is a 39 year old lady who has three children. B.A.No.4875 of 2024 -:7:- 10. 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. 11. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner and the third respondent were apparently living together from 2010 onwards for a considerable period of time and that they have a child born in their relationship, and further that they had entered into Annexure A4 B.A.No.4875 of 2024 -:8:- agreement on 08.06.2023 and Annexure A5 FIR was registered only on 25.05.2024, I am convinced that the petitioner has made out valid grounds entitling to an order of pre-arrest bail, especially since her custodial interrogation is not necessary. 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; - (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. ## B.A.No.4875 of 2024 -:9:- - (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 not get involved in any other offence while on bail; - (vi) 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. - (vii)Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. - (viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries B.A.No.4875 of 2024 -:10:- 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]. - (ix) 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