Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 1326/2014 of Venjaramoodu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District registered for offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 447, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 354 read with sec. 34 of IPC. 2. The gist of the prosecution case against the petitioners is that due to animosity against the husband of the de facto complainant who objected against the petitioners in making the public tap premises dirty, the petitioners had trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the lady de facto complainant at about 8.30 a.m. on 20-08-2014 and abused the defaco complainant's husband and when the de facto complainant attempted to save her husband, the 2nd petitioner had given a punch on the face of the defacto complainant and and hit with a stone on her ring causing fracture on the ring finger and thus outraged the modesty of the lady de facto complainant. Thus, the petitioners are thereby committed the aforementioned offences. Annexure - A2 is the copy of the FIR leading to the instant crime No. 1326 of 2014 of Venjaramoodu Police Station.
3. Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are innocent of the allegations and that the case is falsely foisted by the de facto complainant and her husband. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, on the same day, i.e. on 20-8- 2014 at about 7 a.m the de facto complainant's husband assaulted and outraged the modesty of the first petitioner's wife while taking water from the aforementioned public tap. Petitioners made a complaint before the Venjaramoodu Police, but the police authorities had not acted upon such complaint. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for a direction under Sec. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. and, accordingly, the police had registered Crime against the husband of the de facto complainant herein for offences under Sections 294 (b), 354 and 323 of IPC read with Sec. 3 (b) (x)and (x)(i) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Annexure - A1 is the copy of the FIR in respect of Crime No. 1393/2014.
4. The petitioners would further submit that the de facto complainant herein and her husband has been harassing the petitioners due to the fact the they belong to SC Community and in these circumstances that the aforementioned Annexure A1 Crime was registered against the husband of the de facto complainant herein at the instance of the petitioners. It is only to wriggle out of the complaint raised by the petitioners that the de facto complainant herein has falsely implicated the petitioners, it is urged.
5. Sri. Latheesh Sebastian, the learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that this Court may allow the plea of anticipatory bail by the petitioners and they are prepared to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this court on them for granting such order.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost over and that this Court if inclined to grant anticipatory bail, then the same may be on stringent conditions safeguarding the interests of the prosecution.
7. Having considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and on evaluating the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail in this case, but hedged with very stringent conditions.
8. In this view of the matter, it is ordered that in the event the petitioners are being arrested in connection with Crime No.1326 of 2014 of Venjaramoodu Police Station, they shall be released on bail on each of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the above crime and subject to the following conditions:
i) Petitioners shall surrender their passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within three days from the execution of the bail bond before the Investigating Officer and if they are not holders of passport, then they shall file affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioners require their passport in connection with his travel abroad, then they are free to approach the court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case, if 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 petitioners shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar or graver nature.
iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when required.
iv) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.
If there is violation of any of these conditions, the bail granted herein is liable to be cancelled.
The application stands disposed of accordingly .
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2014.
Sd/-ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge
ani/ /true copy/ P.S. ToJudge