IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2018 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 3791 of 2018
—————–
CRIME NO.427/2018 OF MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:
1 SUKUMARAN,
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. LAYAPPAN,
CHANDHANAVELAYIL VEEDU,
POONJOLA, MANNARGHAT, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 DEVAKI,
AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. LAYAPPAN,
CHANDHANAVELAYIL VEEDU,
POONJOLA, MANNARGHAT, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
SRI.RANJIT BABU
RESPONDENT:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANNARGHAT POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PIN 682 031.
ADDITONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IMPLEADED:
2. JYOTHY, AGED 28,
D/O. RAJAN, KATHANAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
OORAKAM, P.O.ARATTUPUZHA, CHERPU,
THRISSUR.
(ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 2.7.2018
IN CRL.M.A. NO.6163/2018)
R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL
SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.N.PRABHAKARAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
KRJ
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
————————————–
B.A. No.3791 of 2018
————————————–
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2018
ORDER
1. This application is filed under B’438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2. The applicants herein are son and mother respectively. They
have been arrayed as the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime
No.427 of 2018 of Mannarghat Police Station, registered
under B’498A of the IPC. The de facto complainant is the
former wife of the 1st applicant.
3. From the information furnished by the de facto complainant,
on the basis of which the instant Crime is registered, it
appears that the applicants herein are near relatives of the de
facto complainant. They felt attracted to each other and
decided to marry. On 7.2.2008, the marriage was solemnised
and they started living as husband and wife. According to the
victim, the spouses lived a happy life for about six years. The
relationship then became strained. The applicants started
B.A.No.3791 of 2018 2
physically and mentally harassing her and left with no
alternative, they decided to go separate ways. A petition
seeking divorce by mutual consent was filed before the
Family Court, Thrissur. By order dated 8.1.2016, the petition
was allowed and the marriage was dissolved. According to
the victim, on 25.2.2017, the 1st applicant again approached
her and insisted that they mend their broken relationship and
live together. Consequently, she again started living with the
applicants. The 1st applicant assured her that their marriage
would be registered. After about two weeks, the applicants
are alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, being the
litigation expenses incurred by them. The amount as
demanded was handed over based on the assurance that
property which stood in the name of the 1 st applicant would
be assigned to her. According to the victim, the applicants
started subjecting her to cruelty and harassment. On
24.3.2018, while the 1st applicant was sitting outside, the
victim poured kerosene over her body and set herself ablaze.
According to the victim, the applicants did not make an
attempt to save her. She was rushed to the hospital, where
she disclosed that it was a case of accident. According to the
B.A.No.3791 of 2018 3
victim, such a statement was made at the instance of the
applicants. She sustained extensive burns and had to be
treated at the Jubilee Mission Hospital. According to the
victim, she had set herself ablaze due to the incessant cruelty
and harassment of the applicants.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted
that the offence under B’498A of the IPC would not be
attracted as the marriage between the 1st applicant and the
victim had been dissolved by Annexure-1 order of the Family
Court. According to the learned counsel, the parties are near
relatives and the allegation of mental as well as physical
harassment is without basis. The marriage was dissolved
earlier by a decree of divorce and even after that, the victim
came to the house of the applicants and started residing
there. Before the Doctor, who had examined the victim, she
had stated that the kerosene stove had exploded and she had
sustained injuries as a result. Even in her additional
statement, she has disclosed that she herself had poured
kerosene over her body and set herself ablaze. The learned
counsel submitted that the allegation that the applicants did
not make any attempt to rescue her is not correct. The 1 st
B.A.No.3791 of 2018 4
applicant had also sustained extensive injuries and reference
is made to Annexure-2 treatment records of the 1st applicant.
According to the learned counsel, the de facto complainant
was acting in a very unstable manner and the sequence of
events would clearly evidence the said fact. Finally, it is
submitted that the applicants are not persons with criminal
antecedents and it is prayed that they be spared from the
rigours of custodial interrogation.
5. The de facto complainant has entered through counsel. The
learned counsel has also filed an objection opposing the
prayer. It is submitted that the victim was living with the
applicants even after the marriage was dissolved. There are
materials to show that the lady was subjected to cruelty and
this had driven the victim to make an attempt to commit
suicide. The statement of the victim would show that she had
attempted to commit suicide as instigated by the applicants
herein. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in
Berin P. Varghese v. State of Kerala [2008(1) KLT 317] to
substantiate her contention. The victim has explained the
reasons as to why she had given a different version before the
doctor. The allegations are very grave, according to the
B.A.No.3791 of 2018 5
learned counsel. The learned Public Prosecutor has also
supported the contentions of the learned counsel.
6. I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced and
have gone through the statements of the victim. It is
undisputed that the parties are near relatives and their
marriage was dissolved by Annexure-1 order. Offence of
cruelty and dowry demand presupposes the existence of a
valid marriage. It appears that the de facto complainant is a
highly sensitive person and the burn injuries were inflicted
upon her by herself. There is some discrepancy in her earlier
version with regard to the mode in which the injuries were
caused. Having gone through the facts and circumstances, I
am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of
the applicants are not necessary for an effective investigation.
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 a sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two
B.A.No.3791 of 2018 6
solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall
be subject to the following conditions.
i) They shall co-operate with the investigation and
shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all
Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two
months 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
ps/24/6
//true copy//
P.S to Judge