Rajeev vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17245 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
     FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943
                     BAIL APPL. NO. 4288 OF 2021
     AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 2756/2021 OF JUDICIAL
       MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD


PETITIONER/ACCUSED :-

            RAJEEV
            AGED 45 YEARS
            S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KANHIRAPARAMBIL VEEDU,
            KARAKKAD, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
            PIN - 679 121.

            BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :-

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




            PUSHPALATHA.MK.- SR.P.P




     THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
13.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 4288 OF 2021
                                  2

                                ORDER

Application for regular bail.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime

No.382 of 2021 of Shornur Police Station registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 341,

325 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section

31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, has filed this application seeking his release

on bail.

3. The prosecution case is that on 17.06.2021

at about 1.30 pm the petitioner who is the husband

of the defacto complainant trespassed into her

tailoring shop while she was engaged with her work

and manhandled her and caused injuries to her. He

has thus violated the protection order obtained by

her under the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act from the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-I, Ottappalam. Thereby, he has

committed the aforesaid offences.

4. The petitioner has been in custody since BAIL APPL. NO. 4288 OF 2021

30.06.2021.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

raised a plea of false implication and submitted

that he is absolutely innocent. In fact, there are

disputes between himself and his wife, the defacto

complainant and she is residing away from him and

his minor children are with her. So, in order to

visit his children, he had gone to her shop but she

had falsely implicated him in this case.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

application contending that the allegation levelled

against him are grave and serious in nature. Because

of his torture, she was compelled to approach the

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Ottappalam

and obtained the protection order against him but he

violated the said order and manhandled her. Hence

this application is opposed by the learned Public

Prosecutor.

8. Of course the petitioner has been in BAIL APPL. NO. 4288 OF 2021

custody for having committed grave offences against

his own wife. His case that he had gone to her

tailoring shop to visit his children also appears to

be unbelievable as his children at her house only

and not in the shop. But he has been in custody for

the last two months and now the investigation of the

case has progressed considerably.

Having regard to all the facts and

circumstances, I think that his further detention

may not be required for the investigating agency to

complete the investigation and to submit the final

report. Therefore, I am inclined to release him on

bail subject to the following conditions :-

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(ii) He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing.

(iii) The petitioner shall not enter into the residence of the defacto complainant or her tailoring shop for a period of two months from today.

BAIL APPL. NO. 4288 OF 2021

(iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

v)The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

                  In case of violation of any of the

      above conditions, the learned Magistrate                               is

      empowered       to    cancel          the     bail   in   accordance

      with     the law.




                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                   SHIRCY V.
                                                                     JUDGE
SMA