SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ajithmon Sasi vs State Of Kerala on 7 December, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 7987 of 2018

CRIME NO. 1924/2018 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION,
KOCHI CITY

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4:

1 AJITHMON SASI, AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O SASI, ASWATHY BHAVAN, IDUKKIKAVALA,
KATTAPPANA KARA, IDUKKI – 682208.

2 SASIKUMAR, AGED 59 YEARS,
ASWATHY BHAVAN, IDUKKIKAVALA,
KATTAPPANA KARA, IDUKKI – 682 208.

3 RADHA SASI KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS,
W/O.SASI KUMAR, ASWATHY BHAVAN, IDUKKIKAVALA,
KATTAPPANA KARA, IDUKKI – 682 208.

4 ASWATHY, AGED 32 YEARS,
D/O.SASI KUMAR, ASWATHY BHAVAN,
IDUKKIKAVALA, KATTAPPANA KARA, IDUKKI – 682 208.

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR
SMT.P.SREESHA
SRI.MANU.M.THOMAS

RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031.

SMT SHEEBA K, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2018, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 7987 of 2018 2

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The applicants herein are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime

No.1924 of 2018 registered at the Ernakulam Town South Police

Station, Kochi City under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the

IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The 1 st

applicant is the son of applicant Nos. 2 and 3. The 4 th applicant is

his sister.

3. The de facto complainant is the wife of the 1 st applicant

herein. According to the de facto complainant, the marriage

between herself and the 1st applicant was solemnized on

01.05.2018. It is alleged that the applicants herein subjected the

de facto complaint to physical as well as mental harassment

demanding dowry. On the basis of the said information, the instant

crime was registered.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants

submitted that the applicants are innocent. According to the

learned counsel, immediately after marriage, the relationship

between the parties became strained. The 1 st applicant herein
Bail Appl..No. 7987 of 2018 3

preferred petition seeking divorce before the Family Court,

Kattappana on 05.07.2018 and the de facto complainant filed a

petition seeking return of money and gold ornaments. A transfer

petition has also been filed before this Court by his wife. It is

further submitted that the applicants have been unnecessarily

dragged to the Police Station and the crime was registered without

even considering the genuineness of the allegations levelled by the

de facto complainant.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted

that though serious allegations are levelled, no materials have been

produced along with the complaint to show that any physical

injuries were inflicted. In the facts and circumstances, it would be

sufficient if the applicants are ordered to co-operate with the

investigation, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced. After going

through the materials on record, I am of the considered view that

the custodial interrogation of the applicants are not necessary for

an effective investigation in the instant case.

7. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The

applicants shall appear before the investigating officer within ten
Bail Appl..No. 7987 of 2018 4

days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if

they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on

each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees

forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like

sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation
and the 1st applicant shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 10
A.M and 1 P.M. for a period of two months or till final
report is filed whichever is earlier. The applicants 2 to 4
shall appear as and when they are called upon to do so.

ii) They 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/her from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

iii) They 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.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
DSV/-

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

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