SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Antony Jacob @ Biju vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019/ 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.8460 OF 2019

CRIME NO.339/2019 OF Vellathooval Police Station, Idukki

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

ANTONY JACOB @ BIJU
AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O. JACOB, KOOTUNGAL (H), CHITHIRAPURAM P.O,
MAVELIKUNNIL, ANACHAL, PIN-685 565

BY ADVS.
SRI.ASHOK SURESH
SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR
SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT FORMAL PARTY:

1 STATE OF KERALA
TO BE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VELLATHOOVAL, IDUKKI-685 563

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.8460 OF 2019

2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

B.A.No.8460 of 2019

Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2019

O R D E R

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the

instant crime No.339/2019 of Vellathooval Police Station, Idukki

District, which has been registered for offences punishable under

Sections 498A, Section323 and Section324 of the IPC. The said crime has been lodged

on the basis of the First Information Statement given by the lady defacto

complainant on 09.11.2019 at about 5 P.M in respect of the alleged

incidents which have happened for the period from 22.06.2006 to

08.11.2019.

2. The prosecution case in short is that the lady defacto

complainant in this case is the wife of the sole petitioner herein and that

after the marriage of the above said spouses on 22.05.2006, the

petitioner has constantly treated her cruelty and harassment and he

used to demand that she would bring more dowry and that on

08.11.2019 at about 9 P.M the petitioner had assaulted her and she had

fallen down and that he had kicked her and had hit her head on the wall,
Bail Appl..No.8460 OF 2019

3

etc and that thereby the petitioner committed the above said offences.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the

above said allegations are false and baseless and that disputes between

the above said spouses have arisen only because the defacto

complainant was constantly insisting that petitioner should seek for

partition of his family properties and petitioner could not take

immediate steps in that regard, in view of the elderly age of his mother

and that on 8.11.2019 in the morning the father and brother of the

petitioner’s wife had come to his house and due to altercations they had

assaulted the petitioner. Further that petitioner has not assaulted his

wife as alleged by her and as she apprehended that the petitioner might

takes steps to register the crime against her father and brother, she has

raised the instant false allegations, etc.

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

facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to take the

view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not really be

necessary or warranted for effectuating the smooth and fair conduct of

the investigation in this crime.

5. The learned prosecutor has pointed out that the petitioner

has not appeared before the Investigating Officer for interrogation
Bail Appl..No.8460 OF 2019

4

purposes. Hence the following directions and orders are passed:

(i) The petitioner will immediately personally appear before the

Investigating Officer in relation to Crime No.339/2019 of Vellathooval

Police Station, Idukki District for interrogation purposes, without any

further delay, at any rate by 9 a.m. on any day on or before 16.12.2019.

(ii) The petitioner will fully co-operate with the Investigating

Officer in the above interrogation process.

(iii) After the interrogation process is over, in case the

Investigating Officer arrests the petitioner in connection with the

abovesaid crime, then the petitioner shall be released on bail on his

executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- each and on furnishing two solvent

sureties for the likesum each, both to the satisfaction of the

Investigating Officer concerned.

6. Further it is ordered that it will be subject to following

conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal
offences of similar nature.

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the
investigation.

(iii) The petitioner shall report before the investigating
officer as and when required in that connection.

Bail Appl..No.8460 OF 2019

5

(iv) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall
not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any
manner, whatsoever.

(v) If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions
by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court
concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the
plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application

will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS

JUDGE
mpm

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