Subeesh @ Abhi vs Unknown on 28 September, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/6TH ASWINA, 1939

Bail Appl..No. 4491 of 2017 ()
——————————-
CRIME NO. 573/2017 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
———

PETITIONERS :
———–

1. SUBEESH @ ABHI
S/O. STANLY JOSEPH, AGED 29 YEARS,
MANAKKAL HOUSE, KUDAGU, KARNATAKA STATE

2. SUMEENA JOSE,W/O. JOSEMON,
AGED 34 YEARS, MULLOOR HOUSE,
NAYARAMBALAM

3. MERCY, W/O. STANLY JOSEPH,
AGED 54 YEARS, MANAKKAL HOUSE,
KUDAGU, KARNATAKA STATE

4. STANLY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,
AGED 59 YEARS, MANAKKAL HOUSE,
KUDAGU, KARNATAKA STATE

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.BHASI

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :
———————–

1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NARAKKAL, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN 682 031

Bail Appl..No. 4491 of 2017 ()
——————————-

*ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED :

2. MARY FEMIN, AGED 24 YEARS,
D/O. JOHNY K.P., KOVATTIL HOUSE,
KADAVANTHARA POST, K.P.VALLON ROAD,
ERNAKULAM – 682020.

*ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DT 19/7/2017 IN CRL.M.A.NO. 7787/2017.

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI
ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SIMOD SIVAN

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 28-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
B.A No.4491 of 2017
~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated this the 28th September, 2017

O R D E R

The petitioners herein seek pre arrest bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the

apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in

connection with Crime No.573 of 2017 of the Narakal Police

Station registered under Sections 498A, 354C and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

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

of the 1st petitioner. She was married by him on

24.10.2016, but the matrimony did not last long. Her

complaint is that she had been mentally and physically ill-

treated by her husband and the in-laws. The petitioners 3

and 4 are the parents-in-law, and the 2nd petitioner is the

sister-in-law. The sister-in-law resides elsewhere. There is

reason to believe that the parents-in-law are settled in

Karnataka.

3. On a perusal of the complaint, I find that the de

facto complainant’s matrimony with the 1st petitioner stands

strained. She is the additional 2nd respondent herein.

B.A No.4491 of 2017
2

Though an attempt was made to resolve the dispute forever

by mediation, the parties could not come to terms. There is

reason to believe that the present complaint is the result of

the strained matrimony. I do not find any definite allegation

against the parents-in-law or the sister-in-law, except one

two instances of simple assault in certain circumstances.

What is required for a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C

is mental or physical harassment by a course of cruel

conduct. The genuineness of the allegations of cruelty is a

matter for decision on trial. In the particular circumstances,

I find that interrogation of the petitioners in custody is not

required. Even without such interrogation, the required

materials can be collected. It will suffice that the petitioners

are directed to report before the Investigating Officer for

necessary interrogation.

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

B.A No.4491 of 2017
3

case of their arrest in connection with Crime No.573/2017 of

the Narakal Police Station. Bail is granted on conditions

that:

a. The petitioners shall report before the

Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation

as and when required by him, and the 1st

petitioner shall so report before the Investigating

Officer on the first and the third Sunday of every

English month for a period of three months.

b. The petitioners shall not in any manner

influence or intimidate the witnesses and shall

not have any contact with the material witnesses

except for the purpose of settlement of the

matrimonial dispute amicably, in case anybody

intervened for such a course.

Sd/-

P.UBAID
JUDGE

//True copy//

P.S. To Judge
ma

Leave a Comment

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