The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.536 of 2014 of Meenangayi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The de facto complainant is his wife, who was assaulted by the petitioner with a coconut scrapper on 22.09.2014, as she questioned him on the issue of a suspected illicit relationship between him and another lady. There are also allegations regarding the demand of more dowry and other allegations regarding inflicting mental and physical cruelty. There is also allegation that the petitioner had utilised the money given to her parents at the time of her marriage for starting a shop.
3. Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, learned senior counsel instructed by Smt.Celine Joseph learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is innocent of all the allegations and that allegations are falsely made, due to differences of opinion that existed in the matrimonial relationship between him and his wife. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submits that the petitioner undertakes that, he would comply with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting pre-arrest bail, so as to protect the bonafide interest of the prosecution.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the allegation is that the petitioner had used a coconut scrapper for assaulting the de facto complainant and that the wound certificate shows contusions and swelling on the left and pain on the back of the neck and contusion on the right shoulder etc. and that the de facto complainant was admitted the hospital on 22.09.2014 at about 5.30 p.m., after the incident that is alleged to have occurred on the same day at 7.30 a.m. and that she was later discharged from the hospital on 01.10.2014.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation requires the presence of the petitioner for effective questioning and also for recovery of the coconut scrapper which is said to have been used for the commission of the above said offence and that the prosecution is opposing the grant of anticipatory bail in this case.
6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submits that even going by the body note prepared by the Police at the time of the registration of the First Information Report, shows only that there was contusions on the left forehead and complaint of pain on both shoulders and left side chest and that the very fact that the de facto complainant was admitted in the hospital only after about 10 hours, from the time of the alleged incident shows that there were no major injuries and that even the wound certificate would shows that there were no injury or wound are suffered by the petitioner except the aforementioned contusions and tenderness as pointed out by the prosecutor. More importantly, the learned senior counsel would submits that the petitioner is 47 years old and the de facto complainant is 40 years and they have two young daughters aged 20 and 18 years respectively and that the remand of the petitioner would only create more strain and disharmony in the family, which would affect not only the lives of the petitioner and his wife but also that of their two young daughters. Accordingly, the learned senior counsel would urge that the plea of pre-arrest bail may be allowed with any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court in the interest of the prosecution. He further undertakes on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is prepared to make himself available for questioning and interrogation before the investigating officer so as to facilitate smooth conduct of the investigation and also would co-operate with the investigation so as to facilitate any recovery of the alleged weapon (coconut scrapper).
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, that there are no serious wounds suffered by the de facto complainant and more importantly in order to protect interest of the family, it may be fair and interest of justice to partially allowed the plea of the petitioner. However, the alleged weapon (coconut scrapper) is to be recovered.
8. It is also to be noticed that even going by the prosecution version, the alleged incident is said to have occurred during repeated altercations between the petitioner and his wife. At the same time it has been borne in mind that the weapon alleged is to be recovered and the petitioner has to be made available for questioning and interrogation by the investigating officer. Accordingly, this Court deems it necessary in the interest of justice after balancing the interest of the prosecution in the accused that the course of action adopted in the order dated 15.07.2014 in B.A. No. 5030/2014 could be adopted, though, the facts of the matter is different, instead of state away allowing the plea of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly it is ordered that :
1. The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer in Crime No.536/2014 Meenangadi Police Station, Wayanad district on 12.11.2014 at about 10 a.m. for interrogation.
2. In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer concerned to direct the presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time as prescribed in writing by the investigating officer concerned, which the petitioner shall strictly comply.
3. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation of the case and especially in the matter of steps required by the investigating officer for recovery of the alleged weapon.
4. After interrogation of the petitioner in its entirety as above stated is completed, if the investigating officer records the arrest of the petitioner, then he shall be produced forthwith before the jurisdictional magistrate on the same day and the jurisdictional magistrate shall consider the bail application of the petitioner on the same day itself and release the petitioner on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional magistrate and subject to any other terms and conditions that may be imposed by the jurisdictional magistrate.
5. In case after the completion of the interrogation process in its entirety as aforesaid and the investigating officer does not chose to record the arrest of the petitioner, then the petitioner shall forthwith on the same day or on the immediate next working day, shall appear and surrender before the jurisdictional magistrate concerned and apply for bail and the jurisdictional magistrate shall consider such bail application on the same day and grant bail on his executing bond for `35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional magistrate and subject to any other terms and conditions that may be imposed by the jurisdictional magistrate as he deems fit to protect the interest of the prosecution.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor has also pointed out that some deterrent remedial order may also be rendered by this Court in order to ensure that the possibility of the petitioner influencing or intimidating the de facto complainant is abated, as the case involves offences under Sections 506(i) and 324 of Indian Penal Code apart from 498A and it is evident from the medical records that the de facto complainant (wife) has suffered contusions and that a message should go by ordering such directions which would protect the interest of the de facto complainant. Accordingly, it is also ordered that the petitioner shall not reside or live or enter into the limits of the Taluk concerned within which the matrimonial home of the parties is situated, for a period upto the submission of the final report in this case or until 31.03.2015, whichever is later, except for the purpose of compliance of the other conditions in this order and for the purpose of attending to his business in the shop that is conducted by him within the said area and for attending the requirements of any other pending case within that Taluk concerned.
10. Sri.Grashious Kuriakose, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, fairly undertakes that the petitioner would accept and comply with this direction and further that the petitioner would ensure that the de facto complainant and their two daughters should reside in the matrimonial home and the petitioner would give reasonable means of living to take care of the needs of the de facto complainant (wife) and the two daughters and that he would comply with all the conditions ordered by this Court. It is further ordered that the petitioner shall not in any way take recourse to any action for contacting or visiting the de facto complainant in the matrimonial home and he can contact his daughters in his shop in the area concerned for the above stipulated period. However, if the de facto complainant (wife) permits the petitioner to visit the matrimonial home during the above said period, he is free to visit the home. Further, the investigating officer concerned in this crime shall, on a fortnight basis, until the above said period, depute a woman Police Constable (not in uniform) to visit the de facto complainant (wife) in her home and ascertain as to whether she is facing any threat or any other disturbing action from the petitioner herein and if the investigating officer after due enquiry, is convinced about the correctness of any such complaints so raised by the de facto complainant, then, he shall file a appropriate report in that regard and shall file application for the cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner in this proceeding. So also if the investigating officer after assessing the situation based on the fortnight report of the woman Police Constable mentioned above, is convinced that the above said arrangement upto 31.03.2015 is to be extended for a further period, he is at liberty to do so.
With these observations, this bail application stands disposed.
sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
AMV /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE