Allowed

Mithun Jacob Abey v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Feb 2022Bail Appl./463/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to four accused persons facing charges of kidnapping, sexual molestation, and assault. The court allowed the application subject to conditions including execution of bond with sureties, cooperation with investigation, and prohibition from contacting the complainant or fleeing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on anticipatory bail subject to furnishing bonds with sureties, appearing before investigating officer, cooperating with investigation, not contacting complainant, and not committ

Mithun Jacob Abey Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 463 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.56 OF 2022 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 MITHUN JACOB ABEY,AGED 30 YEARS MELEPURATHU EBANAZER, VALLAMKULAM EAST P.O, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689541

¶9

2 ABEY G JACOB,AGED 60 YEARS MELEPURATHU EBANAZER, VALLAMKULAM EAST P.O, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689541

¶10

3 ELIZABETH ABEY,AGED 55 YEARS MELEPURATHU EBANAZER, VALLAMKULAM EAST P.O, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689541

¶11

4 PRIYA MARY ABEY,AGED 28 YEARS MELEPURATHU EBANAZER, VALLAMKULAM EAST P.O, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689541

¶12

BY ADVS. T.P.PRADEEP P.K.SATHEES KUMAR R.K.PRASANTH MINIKUMARY M.V.

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶15

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI. M.C. ASHI (PP)

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.463/2022

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶23

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.56/2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station, alleging commission of offences under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 294(b), 323 & 354 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The allegation against the petitioners is that the 1^st petitioner entered into a relationship with the de facto complainant on the false promise of marriage and thereafter obtained money and gold ornaments from her and had sexual relationship with her during the period from 9.2.2021 to 6.12.2021. It is alleged that, thereafter, the de facto complainant was taken to the house of the petitioners and there the 1^st petitioner along with other petitioners (his parents and his sister) assaulted the de facto complainant. It is alleged that thereafter the de facto complainant went to the Police Station and from there she was taken home by her relatives.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that this is a case where the de facto complainant is clearly trying to blackmail the 1^st petitioner to obtain money from him. It is submitted that the petitioners had no occasion to assault the de facto complainant as alleged. It is submitted that though the allegations were raised first in the month of December of 2021, the de facto complainant waited till 10.1.2022 to actually register a complaint. It

¶26

B.A.No.463/2022

¶27

¶28

is submitted that during this period, the 1^st petitioner was being blackmailed and a demand for payment of Rs.5 lakhs was raised. It is submitted that immediately after the allegation was raised, the 1^st petitioner had approached this Court by filing a bail application (B.A.No.9624/2021) which was closed on the basis of instructions received by the Public Prosecutor that no crime had been registered against him. It is submitted that the threat of filing a complaint was being used till 1.10.2021 to extract huge sums of money from the 1^st petitioner. It is submitted that the 1^st petitioner is a 30 year old man while the de facto complainant is 45 year old lady. It is submitted that, at any rate, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶29

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail. The First Information Statement of the de facto complainant is referred to point out that there are very clear allegations against the petitioners. It is submitted that the fact that the 1^st petitioner is only 30 years of age and the de facto complainant is 45 years of age is no ground to plead that the 1^st petitioner had not entered into the relationship with the de facto complainant on the false promise of marriage. It is submitted that going by the contents of the First Information Statement, a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- and four sovereigns of gold of the de facto complainant were taken away by the 1^st petitioner. It is submitted that the custody of the petitioners is necessary for the purposes of a proper investigation in the matter. It is pointed out that an earlier bail

¶31

B.A.No.463/2022

¶32

¶33

application (B.A.No.9624/2021) filed by the 1^st petitioner was disposed of directing that if his presence is required in connection with any complaint filed by the de facto complainant, a notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. shall be issued. It is submitted that accordingly, a notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. issued to the 1^st petitioner on 13.1.2022, following the complaint filed by the de facto complainant.

¶34

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions making it clear that a limited custody of the petitioners will be available to the prosecution for the purposes of any investigation.

¶35

In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Crime No. 56/2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

¶36

(i) Petitioners shall execute separate bonds for sums of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶37

(ii) Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No. 56/2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station at 10 a.m. on 25.2.2022 and 26.2.2022 and thereafter whenever called upon to do so;

¶38

(iii) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation in every manner;

¶39

B.A.No.463/2022

¶40

¶41

(iv) Petitioners shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.56/2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station;

¶42

(v) Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶43

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.1057/2021 of Hosdurg Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶44

sd/-

¶45

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

acd

B.A.No.463/2022

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 463/2022

¶50