SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Crime No. 799/2018 Of Nemmara … vs By Adv. Sri.V.A.Johnson … on 30 October, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 6288 of 2018
CRIME NO. 799/2018 OF NEMMARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

APPLICANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

1 SHEJIN VISWANATHAN, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O.VISWANATHAN, ARYAPURA KALAM,
THACHANKAD POST, MATHUR, KUZHALMANNAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

2 VISWANATHAN, AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O.MAYAN, ARYAPURA KALAM,
THACHANKAD POST, MATHUR,
KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

3 SHANTHAKUMARI, AGED 58 YEARS,
W/O.VISWANATHAN, ARYAPURA KALAM,
THACHANKAD POST, MATHUR,
KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

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

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 6288 of 2018 2

ORDER

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

2. The applicants herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime

No.799 of 2018 of the Nemmara Police Station, registered under

Section 498A r/w. Sec. 34 of the IPC.

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

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

between the de facto complainant and the 1 st applicant was solemnised

on 3.11.2010 and they are blessed with a son. According to the de

facto complainant, the applicants herein subjected the de facto

complainant to persistent mental and physical harassment demanding

dowry. Stating these allegations, a complaint was lodged based on

which, the aforesaid Crime was registered.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted

that the applicants are innocent. According to the learned counsel, the

relationship between the 1st applicant and the de fato complainant

became unduly strained due to various reasons and it became difficult

for them to live together. In the said circumstance, the applicants

herein issued Annexure-A notice through his lawyer on 8.5.2018
Bail Appl..No. 6288 of 2018 3

demanding among other things, a sum of Rs.9 lakhs which was taken

away by the de facto complainant. He also requested the de facto

complainant to come forward and file petition before the Family Court

for securing a divorce by mutual consent. On receipt of the notice,

stating frivolous accusations, a prosecution has been initiated. It is

urged that the police have registered the crime without even

considering the genuineness of the allegations levelled by the de facto

complainant.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted

that though serious allegations are levelled, no materials have been

produced along with the complaint to show that any physical injuries

were inflicted. In the facts and circumstances, it would be sufficient if

the applicants are ordered to co-operate with the investigation,

submitted the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced. After going

through the materials on record, 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
Bail Appl..No. 6288 of 2018 4

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.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand

only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above

order shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The 1st applicant shall co-operate with the investigation
and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every
Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.M. for a period of one
month or till final report is filed whichever is earlier. The
applicants 2 and 3 shall appear before the Investigating
Officer as and when directed.

(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 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

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