SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

George Judson C.J vs State Of Kerala on 31 October, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

WEDNESDAY,THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 6241 of 2018

CRIME NO. 909/2018 OF Thoppumpady Police Station , Ernakulam

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

GEORGE JUDSON C.J.
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O JOSEY, CHOOTHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
MUNDAMVELI P O, PIN-682507

BY ADV. SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

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

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
THOPPUMPADY POLICE STATION,
KOCHI – 682 005.

3 GOLDY, AGED 26,
D/O.ANTONY,
KURISINGAL HOUSE,
PERUMPADAPPU,
KOCHI – 682 006.

BY THE SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C N PRABHAKARAN.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.10.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 6241 of 2018

2

O R D E R

This application is filed under §438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

2. The applicant herein is the 1st accused in Crime No.

909 of 2018 registered at the Thoppumpady Police Station. In

the aforesaid crime, he is being proceeded against for having

committed offences punishable under §§ 498A of the Indian

Penal Code.

3. According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant

is the wife of the applicant herein. Their marriage was

solemnized on 20.11.2014 . It is alleged that the applicant herein

and his family members subjected the de facto complainant to

cruelty and harassment demanding dowry.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant

submitted that the applicant is innocent. It is submitted that the

applicant approached the Family Court, Ernakulam and filed O.P.

No.2033 of 2017 on 13.10.2017 with a prayer for Divorce and

the same is pending. The de facto complainant, on the other

hand, had filed M.C.No.29 of 2017 before the Judicial Magistrate

of the I Class-II , Kochi seeking various reliefs under Act 43 of
Bail Appl..No. 6241 of 2018

3

2005 and the said proceedings are pending. Finally, it is

submitted that the accused Nos. 2 to 5 were granted an order of

pre-arrest bail by this Court by Annexure-B order.

5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who has opposed

the prayer.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have

gone through the materials on record. It appears that several

proceedings are pending between the parties in various forums.

The applicant has already approached the Family Court seeking a

decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. Having considered the

nature of allegations, I am of the view that by imposing

appropriate conditions to safeguard the interest of the

prosecution, the applicant herein can be granted an order of pre-

arrest bail as his custodial interrogation in the instant case does

not appear to be required.

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

he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his

executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only)
Bail Appl..No. 6241 of 2018

4

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) 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
Dxy

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