SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

George Roby vs S.I. Of Police on 26 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 7703 of 2018

CRIME NO. 1601/2018 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 4:

1 GEORGE ROBY, AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O JAMES, THUNDIYIL HOUSE, KARTHEDOM,
MALIPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 511.

2 MARY, AGED 70 YEARS,
W/O.JAMES, THUNDIYIL HOUSE, KARTHEDOM,
MALIPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 511.

3 NOBY GEORGE, AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O.JAMES, CHALA VEETTIL, NARAYAMBALAM P.O.,
NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 509.

4 VINCY, AGED 30 YEARS,
W/O.NOBY, CHALA VEETTIL, NAYARAMBALAM P.O.,
NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 509.

BY ADVS.
SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD
SMT.ANITHA M.N. (EKM)

RESPONDENT:
S.I. OF POLICE,
NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI -682 031.

SRI T R RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.11.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 7703 of 2018 2

ORDER

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

2. The applicants herein are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime

No.1601 of 2018 registered at the Njarakkal Police Station under

Sections 498A and 323 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The 1st applicant herein is the husband of the de facto

complainant. The applicants 2 to 4 are the mother, brother and

sister-in-law respectively of the 1 st applicant. The marriage between

the de facto complainant and the 1st applicant herein was held on

25.04.2016. They have no issues in the wedlock. She alleges that the

applicants harassed her, physically and mentally, demanding more

dowry. It is specifically alleged that on 3.11.2018 at about 4 p.m., the

de facto complainant was assaulted by the 1 st applicant and caused

injuries to her right hand. On the 2 nd day of the said incident, the law

was set in motion.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants

submitted that the parties had married quite recently and for very

silly reasons, an attempt is being made to destroy the relationship.

He points out that though the provision was enacted to check and
Bail Appl..No. 7703 of 2018 3

curb the menace of dowry, in the instant case, the provisions are

being misused. The complaint has been filed in the heat of the

moment and, according to the learned counsel, if the applicants are

arrested and remanded, the chances of settlement and reunion will

be irrevocably ruined.

5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone

through the materials that have been made available. The allegations

now levelled does not appear to be grave warranting arrest and

detention of the applicants, who are the husband and in-laws of the

de facto complainant. I am of the considered view that the custodial

interrogation of the applicants are not necessary for an effective

investigation in the instant case.

6. 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 are

proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on each of

them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty

thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The

above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
Bail Appl..No. 7703 of 2018 4

i) The applicants 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 two
months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

ii) They 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) They 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
DSV/-

//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