The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.2030/2014 of Kothamangalam Police Station alleging offences under Sections 342, 354 and 452 of IPC. The version of the prosecution is that at about 3 p.m. on 21.8.2014, the petitioner herein (accused) went to the house of the defacto complainant and asked whether she intended to sell her dog/puppy and that when she answered in the negative, the petitioner asked for a glass of water and when she went inside, the petitioner went from behind caught hold of her and thereby outraged her modesty and committed the offences punishable under the above said Sections. 2. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is falsely implicated by the defacto complainant. The petitioner would submit that as early as on 22.8.2014, he had submitted Annexure 1 petition before the Police authorities concerned complaining that the petitioner had gone to the house of the above said lady in order to know about the possibility of sale of puppy dogs and that he was informed that there are no puppy dogs available for sale and that thereupon the lady and her husband, during the conversion, requested the petitioner whether he could arrange a small loan amount, for which, R.C. papers of their vehicle could be offered as security and that the petitioner expressed his inability to arrange the said loan and that the lady and her husband was infuriated at that and threatened the petitioner that they would retaliate the petitioner suitably. Later on the same day, on 21.8.2014, the lady and her husband came to the house of the petitioner and again requested for assistance to help in arranging loan and on being infuriated, the lady and her husband used filthy and abusive language against the petitioner. Apprehending threat to his safety and security, the petitioner approached the Police authorities as evidenced by Annexure 1, on 22.8.2014 and he has received necessary receipt from the Police Station to evidence that he had in fact submitted Annexure 1 on 22.8.2014 itself before the Police authorities concerned. It is presumably on coming to know of this and in order to retaliate against the petitioner, the defacto complainant (lady) gave a petition/complaint to the Police authorities on 25.8.2014 alleging the basis of the present crime. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that incorporation of offence under Section 354 in the First Information lodged by the defacto complainant is only to ensure that the petitioner is unnecessarily harassed to face investigation in a crime involving non-bailable offence. The petitioner's counsel would also submit that in the facts and circumstances of this case, custodial interrogation is not necessary and the investigation into Annexure 2 and also into the complaint given by the lady (the defacto complainant) herein would easily establish about the falsity of the allegations raised against the petitioner. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner has preferred this application for anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that this Court may incorporate sufficient conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution.
3. Heard Sri.Bindu Sasthamangalm, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State authorities.
4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having regard to the facts and circumstances in the case narrated above, I am inclined to hold that discretionary jurisdiction can be exercised to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to incorporation of necessary safeguards to protect the interest of the State for fair and proper investigation. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the petitioner being arrested in connection with Crime No.2030/2014 of Kothamantalam Police Station, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand only) and furnishing two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the above said crime and subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within 3 days from the execution of the bail bond before the Investigating Officer and if he is not holder of passport, then he shall file affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport in connection with his travel abroad, then he is free to approach the court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case such an application is filed, the trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, is free to consider the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking necessary guidance from the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in the case Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala, reported in 2009 (2) KLT 712, notwithstanding the aforementioned conditions imposed by this Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in the above said crime between 3 p.m and 4 p.m on every alternate Sundays till the filing of the final report.
(iii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar or graver in nature.
(iv) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when required by him.
(v) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(vi) The petitioner shall not enter into the immediate vicinity of the residence of the defacto complainant until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.
If the petitioner violates any of the conditions as ordered above, then the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled.
With the above directions, this application for anticipatory bail stands disposed of.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge