IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 8244 of 2017 ()
FIR NO. 200/2017 OF MEPPADI POLICE STATION , WAYANAD
S/O.NARAYANAN KUTTY, AGED 33 YEARS,
VATTAKANDY HOUSE, NELLIKODE P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673016.
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MEPPADI POLICE STATION, KALPATTA, WAYANAD-673577.
* ADDL R3 IMPLEADED
3. V.V.ATHIRA, D/O M.SURESH,
AGED 29 YEARS, THULASI HOUSE, KARINGAM VAYAL,
COTTANAD P.O, MEPPADI, WAYANAD-673 577.
* ADDL R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.12.2017
IN CRL.MA NO.13231/2017
R1,R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI SAJJU.S.
R3 BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J
B.A. No.8244 of 2017
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2017
1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal
2.The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in Crime No.200 of
2017 of Meppady Police Station, registered alleging offences
read with 34 of the IPC.
3.The de facto complainant is the wife of the petitioner herein.
The marriage between the parties took place on 28.5.2015.
The petitioner who was working abroad left India, two months
after the wedding, to rejoin work. Alleging that the petitioner
and his family members subjected the de facto complainant to
physical and mental harassment with a view to coerce her to
bring more dowry, a complaint was filed before the learned
Magistrate which ultimately led to the registration of the crime
BA 8244/2017 2
4.In the course of proceedings, the de facto complainant filed an
application seeking intervention.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for
the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
as early as on 2.4.2016, the de facto complainant had
preferred Annexure-B complainant before the Women’s Cell,
Wayanad, wherein she stated in unmistakable terms that she
had been living separately for the past 9 months. The only
allegation in the complaint is that there arose some
misunderstanding between the wife and husband when a
message sent from her male friend was found in her mobile
phone. Her only request was to summon the parties and to
settle the issue. She had no case then that the petitioner
herein nor his family members had subjected her to cruelty or
harassment attracting the offence under section 498A of the
IPC. It is also submitted that the the petitioner herein has filed
a petition on 17.6.2017 seeking divorce before the Family
Court, Kozhikode and it was on receipt of summons that the de
facto complainant has ventured to file the instant complaint
BA 8244/2017 3
leading to the registration of the crime.
7.The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent on the other hand
submitted that specific allegations were not raised earlier as
she was optimistic of a reunion. However, it is not disputed
that their joint residence was only during the first two months.
8.The learned public prosecutor on instructions submits that the
petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents. It is
also submitted that incidents of physical cruelty are not borne
out by medical records.
9.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the
materials in support thereof, the character and antecedents of
the accused, the relationship between the parties, and
attendant facts and circumstances, I am of the view that
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the
In the result, this bail application is allowed, subject to the
i) It is directed that in the event of the arrest of the
petitioner in connection with the Crime No.200 of
2017 of Meppady Police Station, he shall be
released on bail on his executing a bond for
BA 8244/2017 4
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with
two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the officer effecting the arrest.
ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the
investigation and shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when required.
iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
court or to any police officer.
iv) The petitioner shall not commit any similar
offence while on bail.
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.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
PS to Judge