SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Geetha Ganesh vs State Of Kerala on 19 December, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.8931 OF 2019

CRIME NO.1116/2019 OF Kollam West Police Station , Kollam

PETITIONER/3rd accused:

GEETHA GANESH
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O GANESANRAJAN, AJEESHBHAVAN , PALACE WARD,
KRISHNAPURAM P.O, KAYAMKULAM , ALAPPUZHA, PIN- 690
533.

BY ADVS.
SMT.SAYUJYA
SHRI.K.R.RAJEEV KRISHNAN
SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF KERALA
THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLLAM WEST POLICE
STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH
COURT OF KERALA. PIN- 682 031.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.SAIJI JACOB PALATTY- SR.GP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.8931 OF 2019 2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
—————————————–
B.A. No. 8931 of 2019
—————————————–
Dated this the 19th day of December, 2019

ORDER

The sole petitioner herein has been arrayed as the 3 rd accused in the

instant Crime No.1116/2019 of Kollam West Police Station which has been

registered for the offences punishable under Secs.498A, 323, 341 and 34 of

the SectionIPC pursuant to the private criminal complaint filed by the lady defacto

complainant before the learned Magistrate as he issued directions under

Sec.156(3) of the SectionCr.P.C. to the Police to register a crime and conduct the

investigation as to the allegations raised thereon. The lady defacto

complainant is the wife of A1. A2 and the petitioner herein (A3) are the

father and mother respectively of A1.

2. The brief of the prosecution case is that after the marriage of

the abovesaid spouses on 19.11.2017, the accused persons have treated the

lady defacto complainant with cruelty and harassment and that they used

to allege that the gold ornaments brought by her are much less and that she

lacks beauty and they demanded her to bring more gold ornaments and

dowry and the accused persons used to physically and mentally harass her

and had forced her to go to her parental home on 18.03.2018 and that on

22.09.2019, the accused persons had gone to lady’s parental home and
Bail Appl..No.8931 OF 2019 3

assaulted lady by catching hold of her hair and had slapped on her cheek

and had pulled her down and A3 had hit on her stomach and A2 had

restrained her and had hit on the back of her neck and that the accused

persons had committed the abovesaid offences.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the abovesaid allegations are false and baseless and that it is only on

account of the temperamental differences of the lady defacto complainant

and her lack of adjustment that the matrimonial disputes have arisen and

that the allegations are made falsely to give colour to her case etc. Further,

it is pointed out that on account of the marital disputes, A1 was constrained

to file O.P.(HMA) No.915/2019 on the file of the Family Court, Mavelikkara

seeking divorce on 23.07.2019. It is only thereafter that the lady defacto

complainant has raised the instant false allegations as a counter blast to the

divorce proceedings and that the accused persons herein have returned all

her gold ornaments and other valuables to the lady and that too, in the

presence of the Police etc. Further it is pointed out that A1 and A2 are now

abroad and hence, they are not in a position to move for anticipatory bail

presently and that they would take necessary steps immediately after their

returning back to India.

4. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts

and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to take the view that

the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary or warranted
Bail Appl..No.8931 OF 2019 4

for effectuating the fair and smooth conduct of the investigation of this

crime.

5. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the petitioner

being arrested by police in connection with the abovesaid crime, he shall be

released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty

Thousand only) each and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the

likesum, both to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.

6. Further, it is ordered that it will be subject to following

conditions:-

(1) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar
nature.

(2) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.
(3) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and
when required in that connection.

(4) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or
attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.
(5) If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the
petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned will stand hereby
empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the
appropriate time.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application

will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE
SKS

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