Allowed

Kiran C.K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Oct 2019Bail Appl./6844/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for anticipatory bail arising from an FIR for offences under IPC 366 and 511, the court granted bail subject to stringent conditions aimed at preventing intimidation of the victim and tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on executing a bond of Rs.40,000 with two sureties, subject to stringent conditions including reporting duties, prohibition on visiting the victim, and police monitoring at her residence.

Kiran C.K. Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941

¶5

BAIL APPL.NO.6844 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.1812/2019 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

KIRAN C.K., AGED 29 YEARS, KARIKKAMALA HOUSE, NOORONMAVU P.O., ANICAD, MALLAPPALLY.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.S.SREEDEV

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682 031.

¶12

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., PIN-682 018.

¶13

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶16

B. A. No. 6844 of 2019

¶17

Dated this the 15^th day of October, 2019

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.1812/2019 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sec.511 of 366 of the IPC, on the basis of FIS given by lady victim on 14.9.2019 at about 6.25 pm in respect of the alleged incident which has happened on 13.9.2019 at about 4 pm.

¶20

The prosecution case in short is that, the petitioner accused aged 29 years and the lady victim aged 22 years (who was working in a textile shop) were having a love affair for the last 3 years and later due to difference of opinion, the lady had made it clear to the petitioner that the affair should be stopped, and that on 13.9.2019 at about 4 pm, the petitioner had gone to the parking area of the textile shop where the victim was working, and had forcefully caught hold of the victim and tried to take away her in his car which she protested, and other people intervened, and the petitioner had gone away, etc.

¶21

The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the

¶22

..3..

¶23

B.A. No. 6844 /2019

¶24

allegations are false and baseless, and further that both the petitioner and the lady victim are immediate neighbours, and they belonged to different religious communities the affair could not progress, that now due to the intervention of family members of both sides, the entire difference of opinion has been settled, and the petitioner has also stopped the affair with the lady victim and that he has assured the family members of the lady victim that he will not in any manner interfere in her life, etc. Further that, the counsel for the petitioner would point out that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary, and this Court may grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions

¶25

The learned Prosecutor has opposed the plea for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶26

Further the learned Prosecutor has cautioned that going by the allegations in the FIS, there is possibility that the petitioner influencing and intimidating the witnesses more particularly the lady victim if he is let out on bail.

¶27

The said apprehension of the prosecution could be redressed by ordering that the petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station where the

¶28

..4..

¶29

B.A. No. 6844 /2019

¶30

lady victim is residing or working until the completion of investigation process in this case, subject to certain exceptions which will be dealt with hereinafter.

¶31

Accordingly it is ordered that in the event of the petitioner being arrested by police in connection with the abovesaid crime, he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on his furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, both to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned. Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail will be subject to following conditions:-

¶32

i. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) on every 2^nd and 4^th Saturdays, at any time between 9 am and 1 pm, for the next 3 months, and thereafter he will report before the I.O. as and when directed.

¶33

ii. He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the victim, witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶34

iii. He shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶35

iv. The petitioner shall not visit or go anywhere near to the workplace or residence of the lady victim.

¶36

v. The petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station where the lady victim is residing until the conclusion of investigation process, except for the limited purpose of reporting before the Investigating Officer

¶37

..5..

¶38

B.A. No. 6844 /2019

¶39

concerned in this crime, or for attending to the Court in relation to this case or any other cases or for contacting his lawyers/advocates concerned.

¶40

vi. However if on account of any emergent personal need the petitioner wants to visit the said area, he may do so but only with the prior permission of the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶41

vii.The Investigating Officer will ensure that a Police Constable preferably a Woman Police Constable is deputed to the residence of the lady victim once in six weeks, to ascertain whether she or her family members are subjected to any intimidation or influence by the petitioner or men at his instance. If anything adverse is brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer, then he shall take necessary steps in accordance with law.

¶42

If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.

¶43

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶46

MMG

Kiran C.K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran C.K. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Vineetha Vs State of Kerala

Thomas a.P., Vs Anu Thomas

Muneer K. Vs State of Kerala

Sachu, Vs State of Kerala