Jaisal vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 22206 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
    FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 6342 OF 2021
        CRIME NO.156/2021 OF Tanur Police Station, Malappuram
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 214/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT&
                   SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM


PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 :-

            JAISAL
            AGED 36 YEARS
            S/O HAMZAKOYA, KUTTIYACHINTEPURAKKAL HOUSE,
            CHAPPAPADI, PARIYAPURAM, THANUR P.O.
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 302.

            BY ADV K.P.SUDHEER



RESPONDENT/STATE :-

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

    2       STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            TANUR POLICE STATION, TANUR,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 302.

            BY SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD, SR.PP


     THIS   BAIL   APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
05.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 6342 OF 2021
                                  2

                                ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime

No.156 of 2021 of Tanur Police Station, Malappuram

District registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 324, 384 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, the petitioner/accused No.1 has moved this

application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on

16.04.2021 at about 11.15 hrs, the defacto

complainant was sitting in his car along with his

friend, a lady, at Ottumpuram. While so this

petitioner along with the other accused came near to

their car and took their photographs without their

permission. Thereafter, they threatened the defacto

complainant that they will morph the photographs and

publish in the social media, if an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- has not been handed over to them. Thus

they were put under threat and coercion illegally

demanding money. The defacto complainant was not BAIL APPL. NO. 6342 OF 2021

having the amount demanded by him. So he was

compelled to contact his friend with a request to

transmit a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the account of this

petitioner through google pay. Thus this petitioner

has extorted the defacto complainant and his friend

and received money, though not the full amount

demanded. Thus, he has been booked for the aforesaid

offences.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that this petitioner has absolutely no

criminal antecedents and he never threatened or

intimidated the defacto complainant and his friend as

alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel for

the petitioner further pointed out that the FIR was

registered only on 18.04.2021 though the alleged

incident was on 15.04.2021. That itself shows that

this petitioner has been falsely implicated in the

case.

5. This submission has been refuted by the BAIL APPL. NO. 6342 OF 2021

learned Public Prosecutor mainly relying on the

F.I.Statement of the defacto complainant. In the

F.I.Statement, the defacto complainant has

specifically stated the date as 16.04.2021. The time

of the alleged incident as per his statement was

11.15 hours. An amount of Rs.5,000/- a portion of the

money demanded by this petitioner was transferred to

his account by using google pay from the account of

the friend of the defacto complainant and this

petitioner received the said amount at 12.08 pm on

the very same day. So the date mentioned in the FIR

as 15.04.2021 may be a mistake as revealed from the

F.I.Statement of the defacto complainant, is the

argument put forth by the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. It is true that FIR has been registered only

on 18.04.2021. From the FIR it is seen that the date

of the alleged incident was 15.04.2021. But the CD

file produced by the learned Public Prosecutor for

perusal would show that the alleged incident was on

16.04.2021 and time of incident was 11.15 a.m. So the

date mentioned in the FIR could only be a mistake but BAIL APPL. NO. 6342 OF 2021

the actual incident was on 16.04.2021.

7. Moreover, on the very same day at about 12.08

pm the amount has been transferred to the account of

this petitioner. The amount was transferred from the

account of one Amrithesh, the friend of the defacto

complainant. This petitioner has no case that he is

having any acquaintance or connection with Amrithesh,

so as to have any money transaction especially on the

relevant day with him. Therefore, the record would

prima facie reveals a strong case against this

petitioner. The other accused has also not been

arrested in the case. They have absolutely no right

or reason to question the defacto complainant who was

found sitting along with his friend in a public

place. The records would further reveal that the

photographs were taken by this petitioner without

their consent and permission. No doubt, the incident

appears to be moral policing, obviously a serious

offence. The mobile phone of this petitioner has to

be seized so as to collect the evidence required for

the prosecution.

BAIL APPL. NO. 6342 OF 2021

8. Such being the nature of the accusation

levelled against the petitioner, I find that this is

not a fit case in which pre-arrest bail can be

granted in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, I am

not willing to accept the request made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

Accordingly, this bail application stands

dismissed. The petitioner shall surrender before the

investigating officer at the earliest and co-operate

with the investigation of the case. If he has not

surrendered before the investigating officer

forthwith, the police has to arrest him and proceed

with the investigation of the case.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE SMA