Allowed

Saiju a.v, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jun 2024Bail Appl./1281/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to Station Writer PRADEEP KUMAR.P accused of fabricating a report to assist a deceased Station House Officer in obtaining bail from previous proceedings. The case involved offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC and Section 376 IPC, with the investigation completed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, subject to executing a bond of Rs. 50,000, appearing when called, not contacting the complainant, and not involving in o

Saiju a.v, Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 1281 OF 2023

¶5

CRIME NO.164/2023 OF MALAYANKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶6

CRIME NO.618 OF 2023 OF CRIME BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

¶8

1SAIJU A.V [*DECEASED]
AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O.APPUKUTTAN ASARI, SREEKAILAS, PERWA- A10,
PURAVOORKONAM, KARAKULAM.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 564.

¶9

*AS PER ORDER DATED 10.06.2024 IN B.A.No.1281/2023

¶10

2PRADEEP KUMAR.P,
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O.R.PANKAJAKSHAN, ARYA BHAVAN, PERINGAMALA,
KALLIYOOR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 042.
BY ADVS.
P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
S.RAJEEV
VYKHARI.K.U
V.VINAY
M.S.ANEER
SARATH K.P.
PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
ANILKUMAR C.R.

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

1STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.
2ADDL.R2: SUJA SEKHAR S,
D/O.SIVAMBIKA, SEKHAR HOUSE, PEYAD,
VILAVOORKAL,MALAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 573.

¶13

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.06.2024.
3ADDL.R3: DILEEP KUMAR M.,AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O.MANOHARAN, PARAYILVILAKATHUVEEDU,
MALAYINKEEZH.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 571.

¶14

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.06.2024.

¶15

BAIL APPL. NO. 1281 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

BY ADVS.
V.SETHUNATH
ANEESH JAMES
V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA)
THOMAS ABRAHAM (K/1051/2010)
SREEGANESH U.
LAKSHMINARAYAN.R
OBEID ABDUL MAJEED
SRI.S.V.NAZAR, SPL.GP

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

BAIL APPL. NO. 1281 OF 2023

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This bail application was filed by the accused in Crime No.164 of 2023 of Malayankeezhu Police Station (now Crime No.618 of 2023 of Crime Branch Thiruvananthapuram) alleging commission of offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Pending this bail application, the 1^st petitioner died and therefore by order dated 22.05.2024, this Court directed that the matter will continue in so far as it relates to the 2^nd petitioner alone.

¶23

The 2^nd petitioner was working as the Station Writer of the Malayankeezhu Police Station. It is alleged that in connivance with the deceased 1^st petitioner / 1^st accused (who was the Station House Officer), the 2^nd petitioner prepared a report on the station computer stating that certain persons had approached him requesting him to ensure that a dispute between the deceased 1^st petitioner / 1^st accused and a lady complainant be settled on payment of a huge sum of money. According to the prosecution, the said report which speaks about two persons having approached the 2^nd petitioner / 2^nd accused with the aforesaid request on two different dates was actually prepared on the station computer much prior to the date on which those two persons

¶24

¶25

BAIL APPL. NO. 1281 OF 2023

¶26

allegedly requested the 2^nd petitioner / 2^nd accused to intervene in the above fashion. This, according to the prosecution, was only to enable the deceased 1^st petitioner / 1^st accused to gain anticipatory bail from this Court in another crime registered against him including offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code . The said document had also been produced before this Court along with B.A.No.2407 of 2022, by the deceased 1^st petitioner.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd petitioner would submit that there is absolutely nothing to show that the said report was forged or manipulated. It is submitted that when editing is done on an existing document, the date of the creation of the document will be shown as the original date of creation of the document and this cannot be treated as a case where the 2^nd petitioner/ 2^nd accused had fabricated any document in order to attract the provisions of Section 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that at any rate, the 2^nd petitioner / 2^nd accused is under suspension and the investigation has been completed and there is no need for the custodial interrogation of the 2^nd petitioner / 2^nd accused.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the

¶29

BAIL APPL. NO. 1281 OF 2023

¶30

¶31

grant of bail to the 2^nd petitioner. It is submitted that the 2^nd petitioner / 2^nd accused, who was a police official had involved himself in the preparation of a report, which has been subsequently found to be fabricated in order to assist the deceased 1^st petitioner/ 1^st accused to obtain bail from this Court. It is submitted that this Court considering the same fact had cancelled the bail granted to the deceased 1^st petitioner / 1^st accused and directed that he be taken into custody. It is submitted that unfortunately the 1^st petitioner / 1^st accused committed suicide and therefore the case against him cannot be continued. It is submitted that investigation is completed and if this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 2^nd petitioner / 2^nd accused, the same may be on stringent conditions to ensure that he does not influence or intimidate any witness in the case.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant would submit that there are clear indications that the report in question was fabricated by the 2^nd petitioner / 2^nd accused in order to aid the deceased 1^st petitioner / 1^st accused. It is submitted that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the document in question itself indicates that the document was created on an earlier date referring to certain incidents which allegedly took place on a later

¶33

¶34

BAIL APPL. NO. 1281 OF 2023

¶35

date and this is sufficient to indicate that the report was forged / fabricated / concocted. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. The allegations against the petitioner are as noted above. The learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact that the investigation has been completed and a final report will be filed in the matter very soon after obtaining legal opinion of the District Public Prosecutor. The petitioner has been under interim protection from the time when this Bail Application was filed. The learned Public Prosecutor has no case that the petitioner has misused the interim order of protection granted by this Court. Therefore, notwithstanding the objection raised by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant, I am of the view that the petitioner can be directed to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶37

Therefore, this application for anticipatory bail is allowed

¶38

¶39

BAIL APPL. NO. 1281 OF 2023

¶40

and the 2^nd petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.164 of 2023 of Malayankeezhu Police Station (now Crime No.618 of 2023 of Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram) subject to the following conditions:-

¶41

(i) The 2^nd petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer;

¶42

(ii) The 2^nd petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.618 of 2023 of Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram whenever called upon to do so;

¶43

(iii) The 2^nd petitioner shall not attempt to contact the de-facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.618 of 2023 of Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram;

¶44

(iv) The 2^nd petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶45

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.618 of 2023 of Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram may file an application before the jurisdictional Court, for cancellation

¶46

BAIL APPL. NO. 1281 OF 2023

¶47

¶48

of bail. The registry shall note that the 1^st petitioner is no more and also

¶49

note the same in the copy of the order.

¶50

Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶51

Saiju a.v, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saiju a.v, 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

N.Muhammed Haneefa and Another Vs the Managing Director and Another

Shobhana Vs Balakrishnan

Pudukkad Samagra Vikasana Samithi Vs the Union of India

Pradeep Kumar.P., Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh.S Vs Ministry of Finance

Joy John.P, Vs Muvattupuzha Municipality