Rolence Xavier vs State Of Kerala on 26 September, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/4TH ASWINA, 1939

Bail Appl..No. 5361 of 2017
——————————————-

CRIME NO. 785/2017 OF VADAKKENCHERY POLICE STATION
——————

PETITIONER(S) :
————————–

1. ROLENCE XAVIER,
THARAKAN MELUTTU HOUSE, NAIR THARA,
VADAKKENCHERY,ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

2. GRACE,
THARAKAN MELUTTU HOUSE, NAIR THARA,
VADAKKENCHERRY,ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH
SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS

RESPONDENT(S) :
—————————-

1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VADAKKENCHERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

3. RICHI JOHNSON, W/O. ROLENCE XAVIER,
THARAKAN MELUTTU HOUSE, NAIR THARA,
VADAKKENCHERRY,ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI
R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.PREMCHAND

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 26-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
B.A No.5361 of 2017
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 26th September, 2017

O R D E R

The petitioners herein are the two accused in Crime

No.785/2017 of the Vadakkanchery Police Station,

registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

They seek pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest by the

Police.

2. The de facto complainant in this case is the wife

of the 1st accused. She was married by him in January,

2016, but the matrimony did not last long. She has been

residing separately since July, 2017. Her complaint is that

her husband is not interested in marital relationship, and

that she had been mentally and physically harassed by him.

3. On a perusal of the materials, I find that her

matrimony stands strained to an extent. It appears that

the present complaint is the result of the strained

matrimony. In spite of efforts made during the proceedings,

the dispute could not be settled. The genuineness of the

allegations of cruelty is a matter for decision on trial. I find

B.A No.5361 of 2017
2

that interrogation of the petitioner in custody is not

necessary in this case. Even without interrogation, the

required materials for a prosecution can be collected by the

Police. It will suffice that the petitioners are directed to

report before the Investigating Officer for necessary

interrogation.

4. In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is

allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail

on their executing bond with two solvent sureties for

40,000/- (Rupees Fourty thousand only) each to the

satisfaction of the arresting officer or the court below having

jurisdiction, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime

No.785/2017 of the Vadakkanchery Police Station. Bail is

granted on condition that

a) The petitioners shall report before

the investigating officer as and when required by

him, and the 1st petitioner shall so report between

10 am. and 11 am on all Mondays for a period of

two months.

b) The petitioner shall not leave the

B.A No.5361 of 2017
3

limits of the Vadakkanchery Police Station for two

months.

c) The petitioner shall not in any

manner influence or intimidate the material

witnesses, or she shall not have any contact with

the material witnesses except for the purpose of

settlement of the dispute, in case anybody is

intervened for such a course.

Sd/-

P.UBAID
JUDGE
ma

/True copy/
P.S to Judge

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *