SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dr.Kiran T. vs State Of Kerala on 23 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 7738 of 2018

CRIME NO. 1157/2018 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 DR.KIRAN T., AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O DR. K THANKAPPAN, RESIDING AT NEW RAYS, E-34,
ARCHANA NAGAR,PONGUMMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE P O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011

2 DR. THANKAPPAN, AGED 70 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NEW RAYS, E-34, ARCHANA
NAGAR,PONGUMMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE P O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011

3 MRS. P.J. VALSA, AGED 69 YEARS,
W/O DR. K THANKAPPAN, RESIDING AT NEW RAYS, E-34,
ARCHANA NAGAR,PONGUMMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE P O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011

BY ADV. SMT.MAJIDA.S

RESPONDENTS/TATE COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE.
MUSEUM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033

3 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE.
MUSEUM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA:7738/18 2

ORDER

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

2. The applicants herein are the accused in Crime No.1157

of 2018 of the Museum Police Station registered under Section 498A

of the IPC.

3. The applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the 1 st

applicant. The de facto complainant is the wife of the applicant.

According to the de facto complainant, the marriage between herself

and the 1st applicant was solemnized on 3.4.2011 and they are

blessed with two children. In the course of matrimonial relationship,

the parties fell apart. According to the de facto complainant, the

applicants have subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty and

harassment demanding dowry. Stating these allegations, a complaint

was lodged based on which, the Crime was registered.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants

submitted that they are innocent of all allegations. According to the

learned counsel, the 1st applicant has filed Annexure-A1 petition
BA:7738/18 3

seeking divorce and Annexure-A2 application seeking custody of his

minor children. After receiving notice in those proceedings, as a

counterblast, frivolous accusations are now being raised against the

applicants is the contention fervently advanced by the learned

counsel.

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,

submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. I have considered the submission advanced and have

perused the materials on record. After going through the materials

on record, I am of the considered view that the custodial

interrogation of the applicants is 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
BA:7738/18 4

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 applicant
Nos.2 and 3 shall appear before the Investigation
officer as and when they are called upon to do so.

ii) He 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) He 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 © 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