AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.14/2022 of Andrott Police Station, Lakshadweep, alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 352, 354, 506, 509 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
According to the prosecution, the 1st accused who is the husband of the defacto complainant had physically and mentally abused her and after taking her naked photographs, threatened to post it in the social media while the 2nd accused, who is the paramour of the 1st accused made threatening calls to the defacto complainant and warned that she is in possession of her the naked photographs and has retained the same for blackmailing the defacto complainant and the accused thereby committed the offeWarrier, as counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
Post along with W.P.(C) No.25445/2022 on 16.12.2022nces alleged against him.
Sri.R.Rohith, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that the defacto complainant has created stories for the purpose of justifying a matrimonial dispute and that the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed upon him.
Sri.Lal.K.Joseph, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, on the other hand contended that the photographs produced in this bail application will reveal the extent of harm inflicted by the petitioner on her. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had been, along with his paramour subjecting the petitioner to severe physical and mental assaults and that custodial interrogation alone will bring out the truth of the allegations.
Sri.Sajith Kumar.V, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents also objected to the grant of bail and contended that the allegations are serious. It was also submitted that since, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 has been included as an offence, the mobile phone is required to be recovered.
I have considered the rival contentions.
Primarily the issue arises out of a matrimonial dispute. 1st Petitioner and the defacto complainant are the husband and wife. Having regard to the nature of allegations, I am of the view that even though same are serious in nature, limited custody of petitioner for two days would suffice the investigation.
Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:
a) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on 22.12.2022 and 24.12.2022 and shall subject himself to interrogation on those two days from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm.
b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.
c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.
d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or her family members.
e) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.