P.K.Binu vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 16936 Ker

Kerala High Court

P.K.Binu vs State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2024

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
 THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                    BAIL APPL. NO. 4291 OF 2024
        CRIME NO.420/2024 OF PANGODE POLICE STATION,
                        THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 TO 4:

    1     P.K.BINU
          AGED 51 YEARS
          W/O DILEEP KUMAR, DEEPIKA BHAVAN, PANGODE P.O.,
          PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
          695609
    2     P.DILEEP KUMAR
          AGED 58 YEARS
          S/O DEVAKI, DEEPIKA BHAVAN, PANGODE P.O.,
          PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
          695609
    3     DEEPIKA B.D.
          AGED 29 YEARS
          D/O DILEEP KUMAR, DEEPIKA BHAVAN, PANGODE P.O.,
          PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
          695609
          BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN


RESPONDENT:

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

          SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEETHA S.
     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2024,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.4291 of 2024
                                      -:2:-




                      Dated this the 20th day of June,2024

                                 ORDER

The application is filed under Section 438 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Code'), for

an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioners are the accused 2 to 4 in Crime

No.420/2024 of the Pangode Police Station,

Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused

for allegedly committing the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 294(b), 323, 506 and 509 r/w Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution allegation, in brief, is that; the

first accused was married to the de facto complainant

(victim) on 17.10.2023. The petitioners 1 and 2/

accused 2 and 3 are the parents of the first accused

and the third petitioner/4th accused is the sister of the

first accused. The second accused used to constantly

abuse the victim and cause mental agony to her. On

23.01.2024, the first accused went abroad in

connection with his employment and when the mother

of the victim went to the matrimonial home to question

the accused, they assaulted her and abused her in

obscene language. On 20.4.2024, when the victim

attempted to return the matrimonial home, the accused

2 to 4 abused her in obscene language. Then, the

victim attempted to commit suicide by cutting her

artery. Thereafter, the accused 2 to 4 assaulted her

and caused injuries to her. Thus, the accused have

committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Seetha

S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally

innocent of the accusations levelled against them.

They have been falsely implicated in the crime. There

are no materials to substantiate that the petitioners

have committed the above offences. There are

matrimonial disputes between the first accused and the

victim. It is only for the purpose of harassing and

vexing the petitioners, the present crime has been

registered. The petitioners' custodial interrogation is

not necessary and no recovery is to be effected.

Hence, the application may be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

application. She submitted that the investigation is in

progress. She also stated that if the petitioners are

granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper

the investigation. Hence, the application may be

dismissed.

7. On a reading of the materials on record, it can

be deciphered that there are matrimonial disputes

between the first accused and the victim, who are

husband and wife. Indisputably, the first accused is

employed abroad and the victim is residing in her

parental home. It is when the victim visited the

matrimonial home, the above alleged incident

occurred.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhadresh

Bipinbhai Sheth vs State of Gujarat and another

[2015 KHC 4579] has categorically laid down the

principles for the purpose of granting orders of pre-

arrest bail in cases involving in family disputes. It is

apposite to extract the relevant portion of the

judgment, which reads thus:

"23. The principles which can be culled out, for the purposes of the instant case, can be stated as under:

The complaint filed against the accused needs to be thoroughly examined, including the aspect whether the complainant has filed a false or frivolous complaint earlier occasion. The Court should also examine the fact whether there is any family dispute between the accused and the complainant and the complainant must be clearly told that if the complaint is found to be false

or frivolous, then strict action will be taken against him in accordance with law. If the connivance between the complainant and the Investigating Officer is established then action be taken against the investigating officer in accordance with law.

(ii) The gravity of charge and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended. Before arrest, the arresting officer must record the valid reasons which have led to the arrest of the accused in the case diary. In exceptional cases, the reasons could be recorded immediately after the arrest, so that while dealing with the bail application, the remarks and observations of the arresting officer can also be properly evaluated by the Court.

(iii) It is imperative for the Courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion to grant bail must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In cases where the Court is of the considered view that the accused has joined the investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre - conviction stage or post - conviction stage.

(iv) There is no justification for reading into S.438 CrPC the limitations mentioned in S.437 CrPC. The plentitude of S.438 must be given its full play. There is no

requirement that the accused must make out a "special case" for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. This virtually, reduces the salutary power conferred by S.438 CrPC to a dead letter. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints and conditions on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail.

9. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the

rival submissions made across the Bar and the

materials placed on record, particularly on

considering the law laid down by the Honourable

Supreme Court in the aforecited decision and on

comprehending the fact that the petitioners' custodial

interrogation is not necessary, and that there are

matrimonial disputes between the victim and the

accused, I am of the thoughtful view that the

petitioners have made out valid grounds to invoke the

extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, I am

inclined to allow the application, but subject to the

condition that the petitioners co-operate with the

Investigating Officer.

In the result, the application is allowed subject to

the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today.

(ii) In the event of the petitioners' arrest, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioners on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each;

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.

(iv) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper

with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;

(v) The petitioners shall surrender their passports before the jurisdictional court concerned within a period of one week from the date of their release on bail. If they have no passports, they shall file an affidavit to the effect before the said court within the said period;

(vi)The petitioners shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail;

(vii) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.

(viii)Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below.

(ix) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail

as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) And another [2020 (1) KHC 663].

(x) The observations made in this order are only for the purpose of considering the application and the same shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case to be decided by competent Courts.

SD/-

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE rmm/20.6.2024