Akshaya Das C.S vs State Of Kerala

Shircy V, J

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.718/2021 of Keezhvaypur Police Station, Pathanamthitta District registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 451, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

2. The prosecution allegation is as follows:

The 1st petitioner had married the defacto complainant on 18.10.2019 as per the custom of their community. But the parents of the defacto

complainant did not participate in the marriage and they have not given consent for the same. After the marriage, the defacto complainant started to

reside with the 1st petitioner at his residence. While so, the petitioners together had harassed the defacto complainant mentally and physically

demanding money. In the month of April, 2021 she was sent to her house making a demand for an amount of Rs.10 lakhs. While she was residing

along with her parents, on 31.05.2021 the 1st petitioner along with her friends had visited her house. But in their attempt to take back she was dragged

to the vehicle parked in the courtyard with the intention to take her forcefully to his residence. When the father of the defacto complainant resisted the

illegal attempt of the 1st petitioner, he was attacked and he sustained injuries and the defacto complainant also sustained minor injuries and thereby the

petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners have put up another case contending that the petitioners are totally innocent of the allegations levelled

against them. In fact, the 1st petitioner was in love with the defacto complainant who belongs to another caste and so the parents of the defacto

complainant did not approve their marriage. So without their participation and consent he had married her and after the marriage they started to reside

together as husband and wife at his residence. While so during the month of April her parents came to his residence and there was a compromise talk

between them and as requested by the parents she was sent along with them. But there after they failed to sent her back, so he along with her friends

went to her residence to take her back to his house. But at that time unfortunately, he was brutally attacked by the father of the defacto complainant

and he was admitted in the hospital for treatment and had to remain in the hospital till 4.06.2021. On getting the information that he had undergone

treatment in a hospital, the father of the defacto complainant immediately rushed to the police station along with the defacto complainant and lodged

this complaint and falsely implicated all these petitioners, who are the parents and the brothers of the 1st accused. Though the complaint is a false one

they apprehend arrest and torture by the influence of the defacto complainant over the police and hence this application.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor though opposed the application submitted that it is true that the 1st petitioner had undergone treatment in a hospital

for few days. But no case has been registered against the father of the defacto complainant for the alleged incident.

5. Annexure I the discharge summary of the 1st petitioner would reveal that he was admitted in Sreekantapuram Hospital on 01.06.2021 and

discharged from the hospital 04.06.2021. The notes in the discharge summary card is to the effect that he was admitted with 'complaints of severe

pack pain, abdominal pain and difficulty in passing urine' and he had to remain in the hospital for treatment for four days.

Though the prosecution has a case that the defacto complainant and her father were manhandled by these petitioners, no wound certificate or records

are available as such to substantiate the said allegation. Now the investigation of the case appears to be in progress. But, I could not find sufficient

materials to infer that the prosecution could proceed with the investigation of the case only if the petitioners are in custody. So as custodial

interrogation is found not necessary to proceed with the investigation of the case, I think that these petitioners can be granted pre-arrest bail as

requested. Hence, this application will stand allowed subject to the following conditions:-

(i)Â Petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum

each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the event of their arrest.

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

(iii)Â They shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

(iv)Â They 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)Â They 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.