Dismissed

Joseph Milton Mendez v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jun 2023Bail Appl./3177/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala refused anticipatory bail to the petitioner, holding prima facie case exists in a Section 354 IPC complaint based on serious relationship dynamics. Directed surrender for interrogation followed by immediate bail application to the jurisdictional court.

What did the court decide?

Surrender within 10 days for interrogation and production before jurisdictional court for bail consideration.

Joseph Milton Mendez Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 3177 OF 2023

¶4

CRIME NO.136/2023 OF VARAPUZHA POLICE STATION

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

JOSEPH MILTON MENDEZ AGED 63 YEARS S/O.JOHN MENDEZ , KALLACHAMURI HOUSE , VARAPUZHA LANDING ,EDAMPAADAM .P.O,VARAPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682027 BY ADVS. M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN K.S.RAJESH SAJEEV.T.P.

¶7

RESPONDENT:

¶8

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

¶9

ADV SEETHA S- SR PP

¶10

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.3177/2023

: 2 :

ORDER

Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2023

¶15

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶16

This application is submitted by the petitioner, as he apprehended arrest in connection with a crime, the number of which was not known to the petitioner, registered by the Varapuzha Police Station. Later, it was learnt that as against the petitioner, crime No.136/2023 was registered alleging offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

The aforesaid crime was registered based on a complaint submitted by the daughter-in-law of the petitioner. It is alleged that, on 03.04.2023 and 14.04.2023, the petitioner, by discarding the objections raised by the defacto complainant, kissed on the cheeks of the defacto complainant and also stated to her when she was alone that, if the child was not drinking the breast milk, he will take it. It is also alleged that, the petitioner used to talk with the defacto complainant with a language with sexual flavour. The complaint was submitted in such

¶18

B.A.No.3177/2023

¶19

: 3 :

¶20

circumstances and the petitioner submitted this application for anticipatory bail as he apprehends arrest in connection with the investigation of the case.

¶21

Heard Sri. Shaju Purushothaman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the said case due to personal rivalry between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. It is pointed out that, the defacto complainant had already submitted M.C. No.49/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Irinjalakuda, invoking the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. Thereupon a settlement was arrived between the parties. As per the terms of settlement, she was provided an alternate accommodation and monthly maintenance by the son of the petitioner. Annexure-1 is the settlement agreement between the defacto complainant and the petitioner's son on 16.09.2022. Consequent to the Annexure-1 agreement, the defacto complainant was residing separately and maintenance was also being paid by the petitioner's son. It is the

¶23

B.A.No.3177/2023

¶24

: 4 :

¶25

case of the petitioner that, thereafter, the son the petitioner left abroad. Later, on the petitioner's request, the defacto complainant returned to the petitioner's house. when his son returned from Gulf and was staying with the petitioner and family. The defacto complaint made all attempts to persuade the petitioner's son to take her also abroad but he disagreed. Consequent to the same, the defacto complainant turned inimical towards the petitioner and the present complaint was submitted in such circumstances, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a person aged 65 years and is prepared to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶26

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the aforesaid application. It is pointed out that, as per the statement given by the defacto complainant, specific allegations of sexual assault which would attract the offence under Section 354 are mentioned. It is further pointed out that, in addition to the statement of the victim, the statement of the wife and daughter of the defacto complainant is also there, which

¶27

B.A.No.3177/2023

¶28

: 5 :

¶29

would support the said allegations. Therefore, dismissal of the anticipatory bail is sought.

¶30

I have gone through the records. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint was submitted with false allegation because of personal rivalry between the defacto complainant and the petitioner. However, it is a fact that, in the statement of the victim, a very clear description of each and every events are mentioned. The learned Public Prosecutor also made available the statements given by the wife and daughter of the petitioner. The statement of the petitioner's wife is in tune with the statement of the defacto complainant. In the statement of the daughter given before the Police also, it is mentioned that, the defacto complainant conveyed to her about the aforesaid alleged acts. When she asked the petitioner about the same, he stated that the said incident occurred by mistake. When all the aforementioned aspects are taken into consideration, it can be seen that there are materials against the petitioner to attract a prima facie case. When taking note of the relationship between the parties, the allegations have to be treated as serious. In such circumstances, I do not find this as a fit case anticipatory bail can

¶31

B.A.No.3177/2023

¶32

: 6 :

¶33

be granted to the petitioner.

¶34

When it was conveyed to the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate.

¶35

In such circumstances, this bail application is disposed of with the following directions:

¶36

(i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer, within a period of 10 days from today, for subjecting himself to interrogation.

¶37

(ii) Upon such surrender and after interrogation, if any, the petitioner shall be produced by the investigating officer before the Jurisdictional Court on the very same day of surrender itself to enable the petitioner to move the said Court for bail, provided he surrenders on or before 10.30.a.m. on that day.

¶38

(iii) The Jurisdictional Court, upon producing the accused and filing a bail application, may consider the bail application in accordance with the law and, if possible, dispose of the same on the very same day of filing the said application.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

ncd

B.A.No.3177/2023

: 7 :

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3177/2023

¶45

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE DAUGHTER IN LAW AND THE SON OF THE PETITIONERS SON DT. 16.09.2022

Joseph Milton Mendez v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Milton Mendez 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

Sibi Jose, Vs State of Kerala

P.Kumar Vs State Bank of India

Biju Sundar Vs Asst. Labour Officer (Grade-Ii), Paravur

Baiju Radhakrishanan Vs the Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization

James, S/O. Thomas, Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by the

Haris Vs State of Kerala