Sudin Dev (A1) vs Stateof Kerala on 26 October, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/4TH KARTHIKA, 1939

Bail Appl..No. 6207 of 2017
——————————-
CRIME NO. 1959/2017 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA

PETITIONER(S):
————-

1. SUDIN DEV (A1)
S/O. VASUDEVAN, AGED 46 YEARS, PAPPARA HOUSE,
MEZHUVELI PO., PATHANAMTHITTADISTRICT
PIN-689507

2. SHINE DEV (A2)
S/O. VASUDEVAN, AGED 49 YEARS, PAPPARA HOUSE,
MEZHUVELI PO., PATHANAMTHITTADISTRICT
PIN-689507

3. REMA (A3)
S/O. SHINE DEV, AGED 43 YEARS, PAPPARA HOUSE,
MEZHUVELI PO., PATHANAMTHITTADISTRICT
PIN-689507

4. PAVANANGI (A4)
S/O. VASUDEVAN, AGED 68 YEARS, PAPPARA HOUSE,
MEZHUVELI PO., PATHANAMTHITTADISTRICT
PIN-689507

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SETHUKUMAR

RESPONDENT(S):
————–

STATEOF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
PIN-682031 (CRIME NO.1959 OF 2017 PANDALAM POLICE STATION)

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.DHANIL

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-10-2017,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

A.M.BABU, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
B.A.6207 of 2017
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Dated : 26th October, 2017
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

ORDER

1.Petitioners 1 to 4 are accused 1 to 4

respectively in crime no.1959/2017 of Pandalam

police station. The offences alleged against

them are those punishable under Secs 323, 324

341 and 498A of IPC read with IPC 34. The

petitioners seek bail under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

apprehending their arrest.

2.The prosecution case goes as follows : The 1st

petitioner and the 1st informant are man and

wife. The other petitioners are the in-laws of

the 1st informant. The marriage was solemnized in

October, 2002. Two children were born in the

wedlock. The matrimony broke. The 1st informant

was physically and mentally tortured for not

having brought dowry. Illicit relationship was

also alleged. After attending the counselling at

the family court, Pathanamthitta, the

BA.6207/17
2

petitioners barged into the house of the 1st

informant and assaulted her. She was kicked by

the 1st petitioner, slapped on the cheek by the

4th petitioner, beaten on the neck with a

footwear by the 2nd petitioner and wrongfully

restrained by the 3rd petitioner.

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned public prosecutor.

4.Admittedly the relationship between the man and

wife is unfriendly. Admittedly a petition for

divorce filed by the 1st petitioner is pending in

the family court. I am shown the case diary and

I perused it. Only one incident of torture is

seen stated therein. No injury is shown to have

been caused to the 1st informant. In these

circumstances, I do not consider custodial

interrogation necessary. I therefore allow the

application.

5.The application is allowed. If arrested in

BA.6207/17
3

connection with crime no.1959/2017 of Pandalam

police station, the petitioners shall be

released on bail after interrogation on their

executing bonds for Rs.40,000/- (forty thousand

only) with two solvent sureties each for the

like sum to the satisfaction of the

investigating officer. The petitioners shall co-

operate with the investigation. Petitioners 1 to

3 shall report to the investigating officer

between 10.00 am and 11.00 am on every Wednesday

for a period of three months or till the filing

of the final report, whichever is earlier. The

4th petitioner, being pretty old, is given a

concession to the extent that she shall make

herself available for interrogation as and when

required by the investigating officer. The

petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to

influence witnesses. They shall not destroy or

tamper with evidence. Nor shall they attempt to

interfere with the investigation. The magistrate

concerned is hereby empowered to cancel the bail

in accordance with law if any of the above

BA.6207/17
4

conditions is violated. If the petitioners

choose to surrender before the magistrate

concerned, this order shall have no effect and

the learned magistrate will pass appropriate

orders as if this order has not been passed.

Sd/-

A.M.BABU
Judge

Mrcs/27.10
//True Copy//

P.S.To Judge

Leave a Comment

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