Allowed

Raveendran v. the Sub Inspector of Police,Ranni

Kerala HC27 Nov 2014Bail Appl./7626/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The case involved allegations of assault and outraging modesty linked to a property dispute. The Court imposed strict conditions, including police monitoring of the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to strict conditions including bond execution, sureties, passport surrender, cooperation with investigation, witness reporting, and fortnightly police monitoring.

Raveendran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Ranni — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

Bail Application No. 7626 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1086/2014 OF RANNI POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

RAVEENDRAN AGED 56 YEARS S/O.ANANDAN, KULATHINKAL HOUSE, MAKKAPPUZHA P.O CHETHACKAL VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.SETHUNATH

¶10

SRI.V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,RANNI POLICE STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA DIST

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-10-2014, THE COURT ON 27-11-2014 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

vdv

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

========================= B.A.No.7626 of 2014

¶19

============================ Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2014 ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure anticipating arrest in connection with Crime No.1086 of 2014 of Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta alleging offences punishable under Sections 324, 354 and 294(b) of Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The gist of the prosecution case is that on 22.07.2014 at about 9 p.m, when the de facto complainant was going to her house in car along with her husband, the accused, who is their neighbour, stopped the vehicle and showered unpleasant words and pushed on her shoulder and that he attacked her with a stone

¶22

and caused injury to her and thereby committed the aforementioned offences. Annexure 1 is the copy of the First Information Statement pertaining to the instant Crime No. 1086 of 2014 of Ranni Police Station.

¶23

Sri.Manoranjan.V.R, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that even from the case projected by the prosecution in Annexure 1 First Information Statement, it would reveal that

¶24

B.A No.7626 of 2014

¶25

¶26

there were disputes between the petitioner and the de facto complainant's husband as the de facto complainant's family had widened the pathway leading to their house and that the said road was widened by encroaching into the petitioner's property and that there occurred such property disputes between the two families. Further it is urged by the petitioner that from an over all reading of the First Information Statement it would reveal that the dispute said to have been raised by the petitioner was only against the de facto complainant's husband due to the above said property dispute and that on stopping the vehicle the de facto complainant had come in the way between the petitioner and de facto complainant's husband and that at any rate, the allegations of intention to outrage the modesty of a woman cannot be attributed to the petitioner so as to attract the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the other offence alleged against the petitioner is one under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and that there are now pending proposals for deleting the said offence as a non-bailable offence and that the third offence alleged under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code is a bailable offence.

¶27

B.A No.7626 of 2014

¶28

¶29

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has pointed out that this Court on an earlier occasion as per Annexure 3 had rejected the plea of anticipatory bail of the petitioner herein for the above crime, as there was allegation against the petitioner of having inflicted injury on the de facto complainant by using a stone. The prosecutor has also stated about the details of the wound certificate. The petitioner's counsel would submit that the petitioner was injured by attack on his body on 22.07.2014 and he was treated in taluk hospital, Ranni and Annexure 2 is the discharge certificate evidencing his treatment on 23.07.2014. The petitioner's counsel would urge that the petitioner would fully co-operate with the investigation and that he would faithfully comply with any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court so as to protect the bonafide interest of the prosecution and prays that the plea of pre-arrest bail may be allowed subject to any strict condition that may be imposed by this Court.

¶30

On consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and on evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plea of

¶31

B.A No.7626 of 2014 4

¶32

pre-arrest bail can be allowed subject to strict conditions so as to protect the interest of the prosecution. The dispute primarily appears to be a property dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant's husband. However, sufficient safeguards should be incorporated so as to protect the bonafide interest of the prosecution and that of the de facto complainant.

¶33

Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in connection with Crime No.1086 of 2014 of Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta district, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the aforementioned crime, and subject to the following conditions:

¶34

i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within three days from the execution of the bail bond before the Investigating Officer and if he is not a holder of passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport in connection with his travel abroad, then he shall approach the court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case such an application is filed, the trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, is free to consider the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking necessary

¶35

B.A No.7626 of 2014

¶36

¶37

guidance from the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in the case Asok Kumar v State of Kerala, (2009(2) KLT 712), notwithstanding the aforementioned conditions imposed by this Court.

¶38

ii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar nature.

¶39

iii) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶40

iv) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation .

¶41

v) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.1086 of 2014 of Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta district between 11 a.m and 1 p.m on every alternate Sundays for a period of three months and thereafter he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶42

If there is any violation of any of the aforementioned conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled.

¶43

The Investigating Officer shall depute a woman Police Constable (not in uniform) to the residence of de facto complainant on a fortnightly basis and ascertain whether the petitioner is causing any threat or any unlawful action and if the Investigating Officer after due inquiries is satisfied about the correctness of any such allegation if so made by the de facto complainant, then, he shall file necessary report and application

¶44

B.A No.7626 of 2014

¶45

¶46

for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. This exercise of deputing woman Police Constable to the residence of the de facto complainant may be continued until 31.03.2015 on a fortnightly basis and thereafter if the Investigating Officer is satisfied that there is no necessity for continuing that exercise, he may discontinue that. On the other hand, if the Investigating Officer is satisfied that the said exercise is to be extended for any further period, he may do that also.

¶47

With these observations and directions the application stands allowed.

¶48

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶49

vdv

¶50

//True Copy// P.A to Judge

Raveendran v. the Sub Inspector of Police,Ranni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendran v. the Sub Inspector of Police,Ranni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Muneer T.T. @ Muneer T.T. Vs Shaji

State of Kerala Vs Odiase Austin Goubadia

Nusaibabeebi Vs State of Kerala

Imbichi Vs State of Kerala

K.G. Thomas Vs Francis Manjooran

Sathy Vs State of Kerala