AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner herein is the sole accused in SC.No.517/2017 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge (For the Trial of Cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence towards Women and Children) Kozhikode, arising from Crime No.690/2016 of Koyilandy Police Station for offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He was granted bail by this court, by order in BA.No.5353/2016, inter alia, on a condition that, he shall not enter the revenue village, where the house of the victim is situated, till trial of the case is over, unless otherwise permitted by the trial court in due course of trial for sufficient reasons.
The petitioner thereafter moved the trial court by filing CMP.No.1668/2017, seeking permission to enter the limits of the revenue village, wherein the defacto complainant was residing on a premise that the house of the petitioner herein also falls within that revenue village. It was further stated that the father of the petitioner herein, who is residing in the family house suffer from serious heart decease and had undergone an angioplasty surgery. It was stated that the father needs regular medical check up. Hence he sought modification of the bail condition. The court below after calling for a report from the investigating agency allowed the application in part. It seems that the investigating agency had given a report stating that the defacto complainant had given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Dy. Superintendent of Police and the District Police Chief (Rural) as well as to the Vanitha Commission alleging harassment by the petitioner herein. The court below, not withstanding the above objection permitted him to enter the revenue village only for the purpose of taking his father to the hospital for medical check up and that he shall furnish the date on which his father has to be taken for medical check up. This is assailed on the ground that this will not serve any purpose, since in case of extreme emergency, necessitating immediate medical attention, he may not be in a position to seek permission in advance. I feel that the learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in making such a submission. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the defacto complaint has complained to various authorities mentioned above, alleging harassment by the petitioner. Clearly that complaint must have been prior to Annexure-2 order of the court below. It was not accepted by the court below also.
Having considered this fact, I am inclined to dispose of the Crl.M.C with a direction that the petitioner herein will be entitled to enter the revenue village, to attend his father, who is stated to be ailing, in case of extreme emergency, needing personal attention of the petitioner herein. It is made clear that this will be on a condition that the petitioner herein shall not in any manner threaten, coerce or intimidate or try to contact the defacto complainant and in case of violation of this condition, the above order is liable to be cancelled.
The Crl.M.C is disposed of as above.