SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ganga vs State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 5988 of 2018

CRIME NO. 643/2018 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

GANGA, AGED 56 YEARS,
W/O. LATE CHANDRACHOODAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT UTHRADOM, KOTTAPPURAM,
PARAVOOR, KOLLAM-695311

BY ADV. SRI.R.N.SANDEEP

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM-695311

OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.AMJAD ALI SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA:5988/18 2

ORDER

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

2. The applicant herein is the 2nd accused in Crime No.643 of

2018 registered at the Paravur Police Station under Sections 294(b),

323, 324, 498A, 354A, 377 and 511 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The 1st accused in the above crime is the son of the

applicant herein. The de facto complainant is the daughter-in-law of

the applicant. In her complaint, she alleges that the 1 st accused

married her on 20.10.2017 after receiving large sum of money and

gold by way of dowry. After the marriage, the entire gold ornaments,

except about 6 sovereigns, were taken away by the applicant. It is

also alleged that the accused Nos.1 and 2 compelled the de facto

complainant to have a sexual relationship with the 3 rd accused, who

is the brother of the 1st accused. It is also alleged that on

24.02.2018, the applicant herein assaulted her with a broom and

refused entry to the kitchen and bedroom.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would

contend that the de facto complainant had initiated various
BA:5988/18 3

proceedings before the Family Court and the same was pending. In

those proceedings, her specific allegation was that she had left the

matrimonial home on 24.02.2018. The complaint which led to the

registration of the crime was lodged on 19.07.2018, about 5 months

after the de facto complainant had left the matrimonial home.

According to the learned counsel, the applicant is a lady aged 56

years with no criminal antecedents and if she is arrested and

detained on these allegations, she would be subjected to gross

humiliation.

5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone

through the case diary.

6. There cannot be any doubt that serious allegations have

been levelled against the accused. As to whether there is any truth

in the allegations will be borne out only after investigation.

Proceedings are pending between the spouses in the Family Court.

In the facts and circumstances, I do not think that the custodial

interrogation of the applicant is necessary for an effective

investigation. Sufficient conditions can be imposed to ensure that

the investigation proceeds in a free and fair manner and the
BA:5988/18 4

applicant co-operates with the investigation.

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

applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten

days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if she

is proposed to be arrested, she shall be released on bail on her

executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with

two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, the above

order shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation
and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every
Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of two
months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

ii) She 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) She 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 //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