SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Crime No. 17/2019 Of Pazhayannur … vs By Advs on 27 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

WEDNESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 1288 of 2019

CRIME NO. 17/2019 OF PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION , THRISSUR

APPLICANTS/ACCUSED NOS.2 3:

1 RAVI,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. PARAMESWARAN,IRATTAKULAMBIL HOUSE,
KUMBALAKODE, PAZHAYANNUR, THALAPPILLY,
THRISSUR.

2 VALSALA,
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. RAVI, IRATTAKULAMBIL HOUSE, KUMBALAKODE,
PAZHAYANNUR, THALAPPILLY, THRISSUR.

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SMT.POOJA PANKAJ
SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALUNKAL,CGC
SRI.V.C.SARATH
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
SRUTHY N. BHAT

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

SRI AMJAD ALI SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.02.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 1288 of 2019 2

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

2. The applicants herein are the accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime

No.17 of 2019 registered at the Pazhayannur Police Station under

Sections 498A, 420, 341, 323, 324, 354 r/w Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

3. The de facto complainant is the daughter-in-law of the

applicants herein. The 1st accused in the aforesaid Crime is the son of

the applicants and the 4th accused is a near relative. According to the

de facto complainant, the 1st accused and the lady were working in

Hyderabad. They got acquainted and they decided to marry. On

5.8.2018, they got their marriage registered in accordance with law.

It appears that thereafter the relationship between them became

strained. The 1st accused left her and left with no alternative, she

came down to Kerala and visited the house of the applicants on

24.11.2018. It is alleged that the 4 th accused twisted her hand and

assaulted her. Insofar as the 1 st applicant is concerned, he is alleged

to have made an attempt to assault her.

Bail Appl..No. 1288 of 2019 3

4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicants

submitted that it was without their knowledge or concurrence that

their son had married the de facto complainant and they were both

staying together at Hyderabad. As to what prompted the relationship

between the parties to become strained is something which is not

known to them. It is submitted that when the lady started interfering

with their peaceful life, they approached the Civil Court and filed

Annexure-B plaint and obtained an order of injunction on 9.1.2019, as

is evidenced by Annexure-C order. According to the learned Senior

counsel, except for vague allegations, there is nothing to connect the

applicants with the Crime. The police registered the Crime without

actually conducting an enquiry into the frivolous nature of allegations

levelled against the applicants, submits the learned counsel.

5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone

through the materials made available.

6. It appears that the main allegations are centered against

the 1st accused. At any rate, the custodial interrogation of the

applicants, who are the parents of the 1 st accused, is not required for

an effective investigation.

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

shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from
Bail Appl..No. 1288 of 2019 4

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.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) each with two solvent

sureties each for the like sum. However, the 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 as and when
required.

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
IAP

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