Santhosh.S.A vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This Crl.M.C has been filed challenging Annexure IX order passed by the VI Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner.

A crime was registered against the petitioner by the Cheranalloor Police as Crime No.1335/2018 on the basis of the complaint preferred by the then wife of the petitioner. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 364, 307, 120(b) and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of IPC. This Court, as per Annexure III order granted bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:

“1. The applicant shall continue to appear before the Investigating Officer on every Mondays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for a period of 3 months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence. He shall not contact the victim or her family members.

He shall not enter the limits of Alappuzha and Ernakulam districts for a period of three months, except for complying with the condition No.(1) of this order. If for any extraordinary reason the applicant requires to enter the limits, previous permission has to be obtained from the jurisdictional Court. He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

The applicant shall surrender his passport before the court below or if he does not have the one, he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release. Application for release of the passport, if any, shall be considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage.

He shall not commit any similar offence while he is on bail.”

Thereafter, the 3rd respondent herein, who is the defacto complainant filed an application as Crl.M.P.No.1413/2020 at the court below to cancel the bail on the ground that the petitioner has violated the bail conditions. The court below after hearing both sides allowed the petition and the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled as per Annexure IX order. The said order is under challenge in this Crl.M.C.

I have heard Sri. K.R. Sunil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. K.R. Vinod, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri. Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

The bail was granted to the petitioner as per Annexure III order on 1.3.2019. According to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner thereafter committed a similar offence and the Haripad Police has registered a crime against the petitioner on 25.8.2020 as Crime No.1065/2020. Annexure V is the FIR in the said crime. Relying on Annexure V, the 3rd respondent herein contended that the petitioner has violated the Condition Nos. 2, 3 and 5 of Annexure III order. Condition No.2 is that 'the petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence. He shall not contact the victim or her family members.' Condition No.3 is that 'he shall not enter the limits of Alappuzha and Ernakulam districts for a period of three months, except for complying with the condition No.(1) of this order. If for any extraordinary reason the applicant requires to enter the limits, previous permission has to be obtained from the jurisdictional Court.' Condition No.5 is that 'he shall not commit any similar offence while on bail'.

The prosecution allegation in Crime No.1335/2018 of Cheranelloor Police Station is that on 30.11.2018 at 1.30 pm, the petitioner inflicted repeated stab injuries with a knife on his wife with an intention to kill her. The prosecution allegation in Annexure V is that on 23.8.2020, the petitioner showered abusive words against his father-in-law and mother-in-law and further criminally intimidated them. Apparently, the victim in both the cases are different. The victim in the former case is the ex-wife of the petitioner whereas the victim in the latter case is her parents. The offences are also totally different. The offences involved in Annexure V crime are bailable in nature. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the allegations in Annexure V are true, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed a similar offence. The condition No.2 only says that the petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence. I went through the FIS in Annexure V complaint. There is nothing therein to suggest that the petitioner abused and criminally intimidated the victims therein to influence the witnesses in Crime No. 1335/2018. Only if the 2nd offence has been committed with intention to intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, the condition No.2 in the bail order can be treated as violated. In these circumstances, the finding of the court below that there is violation of conditions in the bail order cannot be sustained. That apart, pursuant to Annexure IX order, the petitioner was arrested on 11.6.2022 and he is in custody since then. During the investigation stage of Crime No.1335/2018, he was in custody for 90 days.

For the reasons stated above, Annexure IX order stands set aside. The petitioner shall be released from jail forthwith. It is made clear that the petitioner shall strictly comply with the bail conditions in Annexure III. He shall not in any way intimidate the victim or witnesses or make any attempt to influence the witnesses. The violation, if any, shall be viewed seriously.