IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE27H DAY OF OCTOBER20145TH KARTHIKA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 7502 of 2014 () ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
IN CRMC14582014 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER
IN CMP23802014 of ADDL.C.J.M.(E&O),ERNAKULAM AGAINST THE ORDER
IN Bail Appl. 6922/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED2509-2014 CRIME NO. 1063/2014 OF ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM PETITIONER(S): ------------ SHAJI O.T, AGED41YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, KOCHERIL HOUSE, PIPE LANE ROAD EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, PALARIVATTOM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.1063/2014 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2710-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
..................................................... Bail Application No. 7502 of 2014 ......................................................... Dated this the 27th day of October, 2014 ORDER
The petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No. 1063 of 2014 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station registered for an offence punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, has preferred this application for Regular Bail invoking the power of this Court under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that the lady de facto complainant was subjected to rape by the accused from his office, which situates at Thevara on one day in April, 2014 at about 2 p.m.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly urges that the lady de facto complainant in the above case is an Bail Application No. 7502 of 2014 2 accused in several other cheating cases and the allegations against the petitioner are false. The petitioner is a common friend of one Sadanandan who is a jewelery owner and one Smt. Sini who is a co-accused along with the lady de facto complainant in some other cases, and that the petitioner was requested to be as a mediator in this dispute between Sadanandan and the de facto complainant herein and that the de facto complainant in the present case was not amenable for settlement as suggested by the petitioner, the petitioner was implicated in this case. He would further submit that the allegations have been falsely foisted against him.
4. The main submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was arrested on 22-7-2014 and has been under judicial custody for the last 97 days, this Court may order grant of regular bail to him but subject to stringent conditions.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is over and the final report has already been filed Bail Application No. 7502 of 2014 3 but the petitioner is an accused in three cases in the same police station in which two cases were registered for the offence under Section 420 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and the third case is for the offence involving money lending activities.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that keeping in view of the antecedents of the petitioner, this Court may impose stringent conditions to ensure that his presence in Ernakulam District may be avoided as much as possible, and he does not in any way influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. He further submits that in case this Court inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, there should be a direction to report before the Investigating Officer in this Crime on every Saturday between 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
7. Sri. P.M.Siraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would comply with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and that the petitioner would undertake that he would not reside or enter into the limits of Ernakulam Revenue District, except for the purpose of complying Bail Application No. 7502 of 2014 4 with the directions of this Court in this case and for the purpose of attending to the requirements of the other cases pending against him in Ernakulam District. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this submission is made on behalf of the petitioner in view of the above submission of the learned Public Prosecutor. The aforementioned undertaking made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is recorded.
8. After having due regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and on an evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to order grant of bail to the petitioner, mainly, as he has been under judicial custody for the last 97 days and as the final report has already been filed after completion of investigation, but, certainly on stringent conditions imposed in this case, as rightly submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor.
9. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Bail Application No. 7502 of 2014 5 Thirty Five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall not enter into or reside within the territorial jurisdiction of Ernakulam Revenue District until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings in this case except for the compliance of other conditions in the bail order or for the purpose of attending before Courts in Ernakulam District in connection with any other case pending against him. ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 11 a.m. iii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court concerned at the time of executing the bail bond and if he is not a passport holder, then he will file an affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport for travel abroad, he is at liberty to approach the local court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case such an application is filed, the court concerned is at liberty to consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon, taking sufficient guidance from the principles laid down by this Court in the case Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala reported in 2009(2) KLT712 notwithstanding the above said conditions imposed by this Court. iv. The petitioner shall not interfere with the Bail Application No. 7502 of 2014 6 investigation in any manner. v. The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper the evidence in any manner whatsoever. vi. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation. If the petitioner violates any of the conditions as ordered above, then the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled. In terms of the above said directions, this Bail Application stands finally disposed of. Dated this the 27th day of October, 2014. ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ani/