Dismissed

Xxx v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Dec 2021Bail Appl./8854/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. against petitioner accused of extortion, cheating, and intimidation. Held that proximity of investigation and sufficiency of probabilizing evidence preclude bail; surrender ordered. Learned Magistrate to reconsider bail upon production.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; direction to surrender to investigating officer within two weeks for subsequent production before Magistrate.

Xxx Vs the State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 8854 OF 2021

¶4

CRIME NO.1874 OF 2021 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION,

THRISSUR

PETITIONER:

XXX

BY ADVS. P.S.ANISHAD ANISH PAUL K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN SANJANA RACHEL JOSE P.K.VARGHESE

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

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

¶11

SMT.C.SEENA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 17.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

B.A.No.8854 of 2021

¶15

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶16

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶17

B.A.No. 8854 of 2021

¶18

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2021

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶21

The petitioner is the accused in crime No.1874 of 2021 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur. The offences alleged are under Sections 383, 384, 388, 503 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶22

The allegations against the petitioner are that she instigated the de facto complainant to have sexual relationship with her and, after taking his nude photographs, threatened the de facto complainant for the purpose of extorting money and properties from him. It is alleged that under the threat of publicising such photographs and that complaints for sexual offences would be levelled against him,

¶23

10 cents of property belonging to the de facto complainant

¶24

was got transferred in her favour, extorted money and got

¶25

¶26

B.A.No.8854 of 2021

¶27

another document executed giving permission to the petitioner to continue as tenant in his building without making any payment of rent for ten years.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

After the order was dictated, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a request to post the matter once again for making further submissions after getting instructions from the petitioner. Accordingly, the matter was listed on 17.08.2021 and heard both sides further.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Annexure II F.I.R. in crime No.24 of 2021 was registered against the de facto complainant and the investigating agency had concluded that he had committed the offence as alleged. Later, on the request of the de facto complainant, a further investigation was initiated in the matter and thereafter only the present crime, namely, Crime No.1874 of 2021 was registered. The learned counsel would contend that ever during the investigation in Crime No.24 of

¶31

¶32

B.A.No.8854 of 2021

¶33

2021, the allegations now levelled against the petitioner cropped up before the investigating agency.

¶34

In the light of the said submissions and also Annexure II F.I.R., the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations now levelled against the petitioner cannot be true at all. But along with the report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnamangalam, who is now investigating into the matter, has furnished copies

¶35

of Settlement Deed No.781/2019, agreement dated 03.05.2019 entered into between the de facto complainant and the petitioner and the cheque dated 03.11.2019 issued by the de facto complainant. From the face of those documents, it is possible only to hold that there are sufficient materials to probabilize the case now alleged against the petitioner. In the light of the said documents, it is for the investigating agency to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. Considering the nature of the offences, granting of anticipatory bail at this initial stage of investigation will adversely affect the same. The learned Public Prosecutor

¶36

¶37

B.A.No.8854 of 2021

¶38

would submit that in order to reach a logical conclusion in the investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. That contention cannot be said untenable. Taking into account all such matters, I am of the view that this is not a case where the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438

¶39

of the Cr.P.C. can be exercised in favour of the petitioner/accused. Hence, the bail application is dismissed, with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks from today. In the event of her surrendering before the investigating officer, after interrogation and recovery, if any, the petitioner shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate as stipulated under Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. On production, the learned Magistrate shall consider the bail application, if any, is filed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the same day itself.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶42

dkr

Xxx v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xxx v. the 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

Satish Kumar S., Vs the Station House Officer

Mathew P.J Vs State of Kerala

Sudhi.K.v, Vs State of Kerala

Anu P. Chandrasekharan Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan @ Ganapathi Assari Vs State of Kerala

Abimon Vs State of Kerala