SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Biju T. vs State Of Kerala on 25 October, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 741 of 2018

CRIME NO.4417/2017 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 BIJU T., S/O. THULASEEDHARAN,
AGED 27 YEARS, KAVARATTU THARAYIL HOUSE,
VATTATHARA, EDAKULANGARA P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN – 690523.

2 THULASEEDHARAN J,
S/O. JANARDHANAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
KAVARATTU THARAYIL HOUSE, VATTATHARA,
EDAKULANGARA P.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690 523.

3 VIJAYAMMA, W/O. THULASEEDHARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, KAVARATTU
THARAYIL HOUSE, VATTATHARA,
EDAKULANGARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690 523.

4 BINDU, W/O. BIJU, AGED 29 YEARS,
PADISSERIL HOUSE, ADINADU NORTH, CLAPPANA P.O.,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN – 690 525.

5 BIJU, S/O. BABU, AGED 39 YEARS,
PADISSERIL HOUSE, ADINADU NORTH, CLAPPANA P.O.,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN – 690 525.

BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANU
SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN – 682 031.

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KARUNGAPPALLY POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM CITY, PIN – 690544.

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.N.PRABHAKARAN

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2018, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA:741/18 2

ORDER

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

2. The applicants herein are the accused in Crime No.4417

of 2017 registered at the Karunagappally Police Station under

§§294(b), 323 and 498A r/w §34 of the IPC.

3. The 1st applicant herein is the son of applicant Nos.2 and

3. The 4th applicant is his sister and 5 th applicant is the husband of

the 4th applicant. The de facto complainant is the wife of the 1 st

applicant. Their marriage was solemnised on 7.5.2017. It is alleged

that the applicants herein mentally and physically harassed the de

facto complainant demanding dowry. On 03.07.2017, the 2 nd

applicant, who is the father of the 1st applicant, is alleged to have

assaulted the de facto complainant and ejected her from the

matrimonial home. Stating these allegations, a complaint was filed

based on which, the aforesaid crime was registered.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants

submitted that the applicants are innocent. The marriage between
BA:741/18 3

the 1st applicant and the de facto complainant still subsists and all

efforts are being made to rekindle the relationship. The allegation

of physical abuse is not true submits the learned counsel. It is

further contended that the complaint has been filed in the heat of

the moment and it is prayed that they be spared from the rigours

of custodial interrogation.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor does not seriously oppose

the said prayer. Referring to the case diary and the instructions

received by him, it is asserted that the de facto complainant has

not suffered any physical injury.

6. After considering the submissions, 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

days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if

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

their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only)

each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, the
BA:741/18 4

above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation
and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on
every Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a
period of one month or till final report is filed whichever
is earlier.

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
krj

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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