Shiju Scaria vs State Of Kerala

Ziyad Rahman A. A., J

This application is filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.902 of 2022 of Pulpally Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 436 IPC. The de facto complainant is none other than the wife of the petitioner.

Allegation against the petitioner is that, on 28.12.2022 at 12.00 hours, on account of the previous enmity, the petitioner set fire to the dress and other household utensils belonging to the de facto complainant which were kept in the house in which they are residing together and thereby caused a loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. The crime was registered based on the information furnished by the de facto complainant/wife of the petitioner, and in connection with the investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 28.12.2022. Since then, he has been under judicial custody. Earlier applications submitted by the petitioner before the Sessions Court were dismissed, as evidenced by Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A2 orders. This application for regular bail is submitted in such circumstances.

Heard Sri.D.Vimal Dev, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.P.Prasanth, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations and that a false case was foisted against him on account of certain matrimonial disputes between the parties. Petitioner submits that he has been in custody for more than 70 days, and his further incarceration is not at all necessary for the investigation. He has further submitted that he shall abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the prayer sought by the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor also brought the attention of this Court to the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge while considering the application submitted by the petitioner for bail, the order of which is produced as Annexure-A2. It is pointed out in paragraph No.7 of the said order that the de facto complainant/wife of the petitioner appeared during the hearing of the bail application and submitted that if the bail is granted to the petitioner, there is every possibility that he will again attack her. It was one of the reasons which prompted the learned Sessions Judge to dismiss the aforesaid application. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the aforesaid situation continues, so the bail cannot be granted.

I have gone through the records and heard the contentions raised by both sides. There are indeed specific allegations raised against the petitioner as to the commission of the offence. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has been under judicial custody since 28.12.2022, and more than 70 days have elapsed. The investigation has progressed substantially, and further incarceration appears to be not necessary. However, there is indeed an apprehension by the de facto complainant that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility that he will again attack the de facto complainant. The learned Public Prosecutor also highlighted the said apprehension. However, I am of the view that the same can be addressed by incorporating appropriate conditions to ensure that the petitioner is not entering into the police station limits of the Pulpally Police Station for the time being.

In such circumstances, this application is disposed of directing the release of the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. on every Friday until the filing of the final report.

(iv) The petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

(v) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

(vi) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vii) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

(viii) The petitioner shall not enter into the territorial jurisdiction of the Pulpally Police Station until the filing of the final report, except to report to the Investigating Officer, in compliance with the conditions imposed by this Court.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.