IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 253 of 2008()
1. VIJAYA GEETHA, AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. KARTHIYAYNI, AGED 65 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.ANIL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :22/01/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.253 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 2
and 3 in a crime registered for offences punishable under Section
326 I.P.C. The crime has been registered on the basis of a private
complaint filed before the Magistrate and referred by the
Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The alleged
incident took place on 17.09.07. The defacto complainant with
injuries was found lying on a road and on information received by
the police from the local people, the police had gone to that place
and had removed the injured to the hospital. No crime is seen
registered by the police in respect of that incident. The defacto
complainant was initially taken to one hospital and therefrom
referred to the Medical College hospital. He underwent treatment
there for a long time after his discharge. Realising that no crime
has been registered in respect of the incident in which he suffered
such major injury, the defacto complainant had filed a private
complaint. It was accordingly that the crime was registered on
reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
2. Three persons face allegations. The petitioners are the
wife (2nd accused) and mother in law (A3) of the defacto
B.A.No.253 of 2008 2
complainant. The 1st accused is a cousin of the 2nd accused. He is
an unmarried person. He was earlier involved in a murder case.
He had undergone imprisonment. He has now been released
from jail. There is strain in the relationship between the defacto
complainant and the 2nd accused. They have a child aged about
15 years. They are residing separately because of the strain in
the relationship. The defacto complainant is alleged to have been
assaulted by the 1st accused on the public road when he was
returning from the house of the brother of the 2nd accused. On
the public road as extorted by the petitioners, the 1st accused is
alleged to have assaulted the defacto complainant resulting in
serious injuries including multiple fractures. The weapon used for
the commission of offence has subsequently been recovered
allegedly from the house occupied by accused 2 and 3.
Investigation is in progress. The 1st accused has already been
arrested and released on bail. The petitioner apprehends
imminent arrest.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The very story is riddled
with improbabilities and can hardly be swallowed by a prudent
mind. The real incident did not take place in the manner alleged
B.A.No.253 of 2008 3
by the defacto complainant at all. The defacto complainant had
come to the house of the 2nd accused and had allegedly started
assaulting her. The 1st accused who happened to be present in
the house as also accused 2 and 3 resisted the violent acts of the
defacto complainant and in the melee which took place, the 1st
accused as also the defacto complainant had suffered injuries.
There was an understanding that complaint need not be made by
either and that is why no crime happened to be registered from
17.09.07 to 22.12.07. Even going by the allegations raised by the
defacto complainant, it is transparently evident that allegations
against the petitioners are not justified and the theory of
exhortation by accused 2 and 3 and their involvement in the
incident is only to vex and harass the petitioners, submits the
learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. In the nature of the allegations, the learned Public
Prosecutor was requested to place the case diary after flagging
the relevant pages. I have taken note of the long delay in the
registration of the crime. I have taken note of the broad
background and circumstances of the case. I have taken note of
the nature of the precise allegations raised against accused 2 and
3, the petitioners herein. I have considered all the relevant
B.A.No.253 of 2008 4
inputs. I am persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail
subject of course to strict and appropriate conditions which shall
ensure the interest of a fair, efficient and expeditious
investigation. At this early stage of investigation, I shall carefully
avoid any more detailed discussions about the acceptability of the
allegations or the credibility of the data collected.
5. In the result, the Bail Application is, allowed. The
following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned
Magistrate at 11 a.m on 29.01.08. They shall be enlarged on
regular bail on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate;
ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and
4 p.m on 30.01.08 and 31.01.08. During this period, the
Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the
petitioners in custody and take all necessary steps the proper
conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioners shall
make themselves available for interrogation before the
B.A.No.253 of 2008 5
Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays
for a period of one month and subsequently as and when directed
by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so;
iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned
Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall
thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to
arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law
as if those directions were not issued at all;
iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender
on 29.01.08 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be
released from custody on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each without any sureties
undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 29.01.08.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-