Allowed

Dr.K.P.Shyamala Mukundan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Sept 2014Bail Appl./5956/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed two anticipatory bail applications filed by different accused in the same crime. Despite prosecution allegations of forgery and cheating, the Court granted bail subject to conditions including regular reporting and non-interference with investigation, noting the child is available for medical examination.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners on bond of Rs. 35,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions of reporting and non-interference.

Dr.K.P.Shyamala Mukundan Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/29TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5956 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO. 981/2014 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

DR.K.P.SHYAMALA MUKUNDAN, AGED 58 YEARS, PARTNER, KODOTH MEENAKSHI AMMS HOSPITAL, PAYYANNOOR, KANNUR DIST.

¶9

BY SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-09-2014, ALONG WITH BA. 6046/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

V.K.MOHANAN, J

¶16

===========================

¶17

B.A Nos.5956 of 2014 & 6046 of 2014

¶18

============================

¶19

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2014

¶20

ORDER

¶21

As the above two petitions for anticipatory bail are filed by different

¶22

accused in the very same crime, the above bail applications are heard together and being disposed by this common order.

¶23

B.A No.5956/2014 is preffered by the first accused in Crime No.

¶24

981/2014 of Payyannur Police Station whereas B.A No.6046/2014 is preffered by accused nos.2 and 3 in the very same crime.

¶25

The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the third accused is

¶26

not capable of being conceived and no child is born in the wedlock of the second and third accused though their marriage occurred much earlier. However, according to the prosecution, the de facto complainant found a

¶27

child in the house of accused numbers 2 and 3 from January 2010 onwards, which according to the de facto complainant was delivered by one unmarried lady in the hospital where the first accused is working and the first accused handed over the said child to accused nos.2 and 3 and 4^th

¶28

B.A Nos.5956/2014 & 6046/ 2014

¶29

¶30

accused gave a forged birth certificate in favour of accused nos.2 and 3. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused four in numbers in Crime No. 981/2014 of Payyannur Police Station have committed the offences punishable under Sections 370 and 371 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners are unanimous in their submission that the petitioners are implicated in the above crime falsely and that though the crime was registered as early as on 03.08.2014, according to the counsels, to complete the investigation the custody of the petitioners is not necessary.

¶33

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the bail applications, submitted that the medical evidence has to be collected by the investigating agency for which the custody of the petitioners are absolutely necessary and therefore, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners will affect the investigation.

¶34

B.A Nos.5956/2014 & 6046/ 2014

¶35

¶36

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Having regard to the nature of the allegations, according to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not warranted especially when the child in question is rightly available for any medical examination. In order to collect medical evidence with respect to accused nos.2 and 3 also, according to me, the custody of these petitioners may not be necessary. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, she is a doctor by profession and in view of the allegation, her custody is also not required for the purpose of investigation.

¶37

It is also relevant to note that in B.A No.5956/2014 this Court by order dated 06.08.2014 directed the prosecution not to arrest the petitioner till 12.08.2014 and subsequently the said order was extended from time to time. It is also made clear in the said order that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation whenever she is asked for interrogation by issuing notice under Section 41A and 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, an identical order was passed in B.A No.6046/2014 and thus, it can be seen that while the above bail applications

¶38

B.A Nos.5956/2014 & 6046/ 2014

¶39

¶40

were pending in this Court, sufficient safeguards were incorporated enabling the police to conduct an effective investigation. But, so far there is no progress in the investigation and after the filing of the above bail applications no effective step was taken by the police and no notices were issued to the petitioners for any investigation purpose.

¶41

Under the above circumstances, according to me, these applications can be disposed of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners however, subject to conditions so as to safeguard the interest of the prosecution.

¶42

In the result, this petition is allowed and accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners in Crime No.981/2014 of Payyannur Police Station, each of them shall be released on bail on each of them executing separate bond for `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the above crime and on the following other conditions:

¶43

B.A Nos.5956/2014 & 6046/ 2014

¶44

¶45

i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in the above crime on all second Saturdays between 10 a.m and 11 a.m.

¶46

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and try to influence any witnesses.

¶47

iii) Petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶50

vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge

Dr.K.P.Shyamala Mukundan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.K.P.Shyamala Mukundan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jancy Benny Vs State of Kerala

Christin P Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Hariprasad K @ Hareesh Vs Nazima Sheikh

Jaison Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Chittar

Abdul Manaf Vs State of Kerala