SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Crime No. 699/2018 Of Alathur … vs By Adv.Sri.V.A.Johnson … on 2 August, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 5486 of 2018
——————
IN CRMP 1970/2018 of D.C SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 02-08-2018

CRIME NO. 699/2018 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD
—————

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 2:

1 SURESH,
S/O.LATE VELANKUTTY, THEKKUMURI,
KADAMBIDI, MELARCODE, CHITTILECHERRY POST,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

2 RAMESH,
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.LATE VELANKUTTY, THEKKUMURI,
KADAMBIDI, MELARCODE, CHITTILECHERRY POST,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

BY ADV.SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT::

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-08-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

DXY

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J
——————————————–
B.A. No. 5486 of 2018
—————————————————-
Dated this the 20th day of August, 2018

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The applicants herein are brothers. They face

accusations of having committed offence under Sections 498A

and 306 of the IPC in Crime No.699 of 2018 of the Alathur

Police Station.

3. The 1st applicant was married to one Smt.Radhika and

they have a son who is aged about 10 years. It is the case of the

prosecution that the 1st applicant used to subject his wife to

cruelty and harassment and being left with no alternative, she

decided to take her own life by consuming poison on 28.6.2018.

Though Radhika was rushed to the hospital, her life could not be

saved. She was pronounced dead on 30.6.2018. Though the

Crime was initially registered under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C.,

in the course of investigation, when the role of the applicants

came to light, they were roped in as accused Nos. 1 and 2. The

2nd applicant is alleged to have aided the 1st accused.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants

submitted that the applicants were arrested on 05.07.2018.
B.A. No. 5486 of 2018
::2::

According to the learned counsel, more than a decade have

elapsed after the marriage and they were living a blissful life.

The deceased was a sensitive lady and she was perturbed due to

certain incidents which took place recently. The 1 st applicant

was roped in as he has a drinking habit which was not to the

liking of the deceased. At any rate, contends the learned

counsel, the applicants herein have been undergoing

incarceration for a long period and their further detention in

custody is clearly unwarranted.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has made available the

case diary.

6. Having gone through the materials, I am of the view

that further detention in custody of the applicants is not

necessary for an effective investigation. The investigation

appears to have reached the final stages.

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

applicants 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 to the satisfaction of the court

having jurisdiction. The above order shall be subject to the

following conditions:

1). The applicants shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m.
and 11 a.m., for a period of three months or till final
B.A. No. 5486 of 2018
::3::

report is filed, whichever is earlier.

2). They shall not intimidate or attempt to influence
the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the
evidence.

3). They shall not commit any offence while on bail.

4). They shall not leave India without the permission
of the Court and if having passport, shall deposit the
same before the Trial Court within a week; If release
of the passport is required at a later period, the
applicants shall be at liberty to move appropriate
application before the Court having jurisdiction.

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

\True Copy\

PA to Judge
Dxy

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