SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

/Accused Nos. 2 To 4 vs State Of Kerala on 25 September, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 3RD ASWINA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.6736 OF 2019

CRIME NO.989/2019 OF Varkala Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

PETITIONERS:/ACCUSED NOS. 2 TO 4

1 RAMLA BEEVI,
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O.SAINABABEEVI, MS MANZIL, MULAKUNNUVILA (H),
PULIMUKKU, RATHICKAL DESOM, VETTOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

2 MUHSINA,
AGED 30 YEARS
D/O.RAMLABEEVI, MS MANZIL, MULAKUNNUVILA (H),
PULIMUKKU, RATHICKAL DESOM, VETTOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

3 KIDWAI,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.SALAHUDHEEN, MS MANZIL, MULAKUNNUVILA (H),
PULIMUKKU, RATHICKAL DESOM, VETTOOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN
SRI.AKHIL S.VISHNU

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AT ERNAKULAM- 682031.

2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VARKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-
695141.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.S.SAJJU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.09.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.6736/2019 2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
——————————————-
B.A.No.6736 of 2019
———————————————-
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2019

ORDER

The subject crime in this case is Crime No.989/2019 of Varkala Police

Station, which has been initially registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. on

account of the unnatural death/suicide of the lady victim in this case.

Later, the Police, after investigation, has altered the offences to those as

per Sections 498A, Section306 and Section34 of the IPC and four persons including the

three petitioners herein have been arrayed as the accused persons in the

said crime. The lady victim in this case, who committed suicide, is the wife

of A1. The petitioners herein are the accused 2 to 4 herein and they are

father, unmarried sister and mother respectively of A1 (husband of the

deceased lady).

2. The prosecution case is that, after the marriage of the above

said spouses, the accused persons have treated the lady with cruelty and

harassment and that they have demanded more dowry from her and also

misappropriated her gold ornaments given to her by her parents at the

time of her marriage and that A1 has assaulted her and attacked her and it

is on account of the conduct of the accused persons that she has committed

suicide and that thereby, the accused persons have committed the above

said offences. It appears that the lady victim has jumped into the well

along with her two year old girl child and both of them had died. The
B.A.No.6736/2019 3

petitioners herein (A2 to A4) have been arrested and remanded on

16.9.2019 and have been detention since then. Accused No.1 is abroad.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that

apart from the allegations of alleged demand of dowry, the prosecution has

not been able to collect any materials to even remotely connect the

petitioners with the allegation that they had instigated the deceased lady to

commit suicide and that none of the vital ingredients of the offence of

abetment as per Section 107 of IPC and and the offence of abetment to

commit suicide as per Section 306 of IPC has been made out in this case.

Further that the continued detention of the petitioners may not be

necessary. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out

the various rulings of the Apex Court and this Court regarding the

ingredients to be satisfied for offence of abetment as per Section 107 of IPC

and the offence of abetment to commit suicide as per Section 306 of IPC

and has placed reliance on various decisions rendered by the Apex Court

and the various High Courts including this Court in cases as in SectionSanju @

Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. [ 2002 SCC (Crl.) 1141],

Krishnadas v State of Kerala [2017 (2) KLT 579], Gurucharan

Singh v State of Punjab [2016 (12) SCALE 414], Harikrishnan

Anr. v State of Kerala and Anr. [2019 (3) KHC 437]. To buttress this

contention that the above said ingredients have not been made out in the

investigation materials in this case. The learned counsel for the

petitioners would also point out that, after the interrogation of the

petitioners, they have been arrested and thereafter produced before the
B.A.No.6736/2019 4

learned Magistrate, who has ordered the remand on 16.9.2019 and that the

Investigating Officer has not sought for the custodial interrogation of the

petitioners so far, which clearly shows that the interrogation of the

petitioners have been completed and that their continued detention is

unnecessary and that the petitioners would fully co-operate with the

Investigating Officer for the smooth conduct of the investigation and that

this Court may order to release them on regular bail subject to any

stringent conditions.

4. On being queried, the learned Public Prosecutor has pointed

out that after the interrogation process was over, the remand of the

petitioners was sought and the learned Magistrate has remanded them on

16.9.2019 and that the Investigating Officer has not sought for the

custodial interrogation of the petitioners.

5. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the

facts and circumstances of the case and after testing the facts of the case in

the light of the above said judicial precedents, which have laid down the

ingredients for offence of abetment as per Section 107 of IPC and the

offence of abetment to commit suicide as per Section 306 of IPC, this

Court is inclined to take the view that the petitioners have made out a

strong probable case that their continued detention may not be necessary

or warranted in the facts of this case. Accordingly, it is ordered that the

petitioners/accused shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for

Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each and on their separately

furnishing 2 solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the
B.A.No.6736/2019 5

competent court concerned. However, the above order shall be subject to

the following conditions:

(i). The petitioners will report before the Investigating
Officer concerned at any time between 09:00 a.m.
and 01:00 p.m. on every 2nd and 4th Saturdays for the
next 3 months. Thereafter the petitioners shall report
before the Investigating Officer as and when directed
by him.

(ii). The petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to
influence the defacto complainant/victim, witnesses;
nor shall tamper with the evidence.

(iii). The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence
while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court

concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider the application for

cancellation of bail, if required, and pass appropriate orders in accordance

with the law.

With these observations and directions, the above Application will

stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

acd

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation