Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3172
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
SHAJAHAN K.M – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 10537 2022
N.C.MOHANAN, ATHUL TOM, SUJITHA S.M, SMT.SEETHA S.
Anticipatory bail can be granted even in serious allegations if detention is deemed unnecessary for the investigation.
Headnote:
Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 448; Kerala Police Act, 2011 Section 120(o); Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 31(1) - The court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 considering the nature of allegations and matrimonial disharmony, emphasizing the need for personal liberty.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner faces accusations of trespassing and violating a protection order while indicating that he was wrongly implicated without sufficient evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that detention during investigation was unnecessary, especially with the non-bailable aspect being the only offense of lesser risk in nature.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail given the nature of the accusations and existing protection orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that bail should not be denied on mere allegations, particularly given the personal and familial context of the case.
Final Decision: Bail application allowed under specified conditions.
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.322 of 2022 of Sreekrishnapuram Police Station, Palakkad for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , Section 120 (o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and Section 31 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 .
3. The prosecution allegation is that in violation of the protection order issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Ottappalam in M.C.No.124 of 2020 the petitioner forcibly removed the lock of the shared house hold and trespassed into the said house. He also posted family photos of the parties in social media with a view to cause embarrassment to the wife and other members of her family.
4. The petitioner would contend that he did not involve in the alleged crime and without any material or evidence, he was implicated in the crime.
5. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and considering the nature of the offence, I am of the view that the detention of the petitioner during the period of investigation is not necessary in this case. Among the offences alleged, one punishable under Section 31 (1) of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 alone is non bailable one. The said offence is punishable with imprisonment for a period of one year. Considering that the dispute is with respect to the matrimonial disharmony between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in the event of his arrest.
In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:
(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;
(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for; and
(iii) During the bail period, He shall not get involved in any offence.
In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.
