IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 6929 of 2018
CRIME NO. 775/2018 OF NENMARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD
FEBI JAMES, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O.JAMES, KANJIRAMATTATHIL HOUSE,
KAYARADI, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of
2. The applicant herein is the 1 st accused in Crime No.775 of
2018 registered at the Nemmara Police Station. He along with
accused Nos. 2 and 3 face accusation for having committed offence
punishable under Sections 323 and 498A read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
Bail Appl..No. 6929 of 2018 2
3. The de facto complainant is the wife of the applicant
herein. The marriage between the applicant and the de facto
complainant was solemnized on 23.06.2012. She alleges that
from the date of her marriage, she was subjected to torture by the
accused for her failure to satisfy their demand for more dowry. She
specifically alleges that on 08.08.2018 for trivial reasons, she was
strangulated with a bath towel and thereafter, she was fisted by the
applicant. The parents of the 1st accused are also alleged to have
joined him in his offensive acts.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant
submitted that there are only minor differences between the
spouses. According to the learned counsel, the allegation of
physical abuse and mental harassment is without basis.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has made available the
wound certificate of the victim dated 08.08.2018 and would
contend that the allegations made by her is substantially
corroborated by the observations and findings of the doctor. It is
evident that she was subjected to physical torture on 8.8.2018 as
claimed by the lady.
Bail Appl..No. 6929 of 2018 3
6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have
gone through the case diary. As rightly submitted by the learned
Public Prosecutor, the de facto complainant was seen by a doctor
and he has noted some injuries on her body. The allegations are
serious and in that view of the matter, I am not persuaded to grant
an order of anticipatory bail to the applicant. However, having
regard to the fact that the dispute is between husband and wife, I
am inclined to permit the applicant to surrender before the
investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation. I
direct the applicant to surrender before the investigating officer
within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. After
interrogation, the applicant shall be produced before the Magistrate
having jurisdiction. If an application for bail is preferred, with
advance notice to the Prosecutor concerned, the same shall be
considered and orders shall be passed expeditiously and on its
merits, ideally on the same day itself.
This application is dismissed.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
DSV/23/10/18 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE