IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 24TH MAGHA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 995 of 2019
CRIME NO. 46/2018 OF VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
JAISON, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O. JOLLY,PULIKKATHARA HOUSE, GOTHURUTH KARA,
GOTHURUTH POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 516
BY ADVS.
SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR
SRI.M.S.SANDEEP SUDHAKARAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031
2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 504.
SMT. K. SHEEBA PP.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 995 of 2019 2
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.46 of 2018
registered at the Vadakkekara Police Station under Section 498A r/w.
Sec. 34 of the IPC. The de facto complainant is his wife.
3. According to the de facto complainant, the marriage
between the applicant and the de facto complainant was solemnized
more than a decade back and they have three children. According to
her, from the date of marriage, the applicant used to subject her to
physical and mental harassment demanding dowry. She would also
state that on numerous occasions, the applicant used to physically
assault her and she had to undergo treatment.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted
that the allegations levelled against the applicant are without basis.
According to the learned counsel, parties are still residing with the
aged parents of the applicant. The de facto complainant insisted that
they resides separately. When he refused to oblige, false accusations
are now being raised against him. He points out that though the
Bail Appl..No. 995 of 2019 3
provision was enacted to check and 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 applicant is arrested and remanded, the chances of
settlement and reunion will be irrevocably ruined.
5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have perused the
materials made available. The allegations now levelled do not appear
to be grave warranting arrest and detention of the applicant, who is
the husband of the de facto complainant. I am of the considered view
that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary for an
effective investigation in the instant case.
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 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. 995 of 2019 4
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and
the shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every
Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.M. for a period of one
month 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 act of physical abuse on his wife.
iv) 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
IAP
