K.C.Chacko vs State Of Kerala

K.Babu, J.

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.424/2022 of Sreekandapuram Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner/accused is punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

The crime has been registered based on a private complaint filed by Smt. T.K.Ramani, wife of Shri. M.V.Kunhikrishnan who committed suicide on 05.03.2022.

The husband of the defacto complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs from the petitioner. Thereafter the parties entered into an agreement for sale in respect of 38 cents of land. The husband of the defacto complainant had paid Rs.6 Lakhs to the petitioner towards interest and principal. The petitioner demanded more money as penal interest. Consequent to the mental pain suffered due to the ill-treatment on the part of the petitioner, the husband of the defacto complainant committed suicide on 05.03.2022.

Based on this allegation, the above referred crime was registered alleging that the petitioner abetted the husband of the defcato complainant to commit suicide.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

The case of the petitioner/accused is that the allegations levelled in the complaint are baseless. On 25.09.2020, the deceased had executed a sale agreement in respect of 38 cents of land in favour of the petitioner/accused. During the pendency of the sale agreement the husband of the defacto complainant committed suicide. Thereafter, the petitoner instituted a suit for enforcement of the contract for sale in respect of the property agreed to be sold. Thereafter the present complaint was instituted by the defacto complainant. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this crime.

A report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer wherein there is mention of a letter stated to have been written by the deceased raising allegations against the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor that the Police could not locate any letter as alleged.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime. There is absolutely nothing to show that the petitioner had done any act so as to abet the husband of the defacto complainant to commit suicide. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is prepared to co-operate with the investigation. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents .

The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner/accused. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

Having gone through the materials placed before the Court, I am of the view that the petitioner could establish a prima facie case. The mens rea of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences is doubtful. Therefore, the petitioner/accused is entitled to the extraordinary relief contained in Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Though this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C., the apprehension of the learned Public Prosecutor that uninterrupted investigation of the case may be affected if the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not facilitated, cannot be lost sight of. Deducing the broad principles for granting pre-arrest bail, as provided under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and another v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 1632) held that while granting relief under Section 438(1) Cr.P.C, appropriate conditions can be imposed under sub-section (2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. It was held that one of such conditions can even be that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery.

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed as follows :-

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 09.11.2022, for interrogation.

(ii) The Station House Officer, Sreekandapuram Police Station is directed to release the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest, on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating agency.

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Wednesdays between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

(v) The petitioner should surrender himself to the Police for a brief period, if a discovery is to be made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

(v) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses in this case or tamper with the evidence.