SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jayakumar V.P vs State Of Kerala on 18 November, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2017/8TH JYAISHTA, 1939

Bail Appl..No. 3399 of 2017 ()
——————————-
CRIME NO. 344/2017 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION , KASARGOD
—————-

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:
—————————-

1. SectionJAYAKUMAR V.P,
S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN V.K., AGED 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VANNADIL PUTHIYAVEETTIL,
THAYINERI, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT,
NOW RESIDING AT SREEPADAM, KAROLAM EAST,
ELAMBACHI P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

2. GOPALAKRISHNAN V.K,
S/O. SEKHARA PODUVAL, AGED 71 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VANNADIL PUTHIYAVEETTIL,
THAYINERI, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

3. SectionSAROJINI V.P,
W/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN V.K, AGED 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT VANNADI PUTHIYAVEETTIL,
THAYINERI, PAYYANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI

RESPONDENT/STATE:
—————–

STATE OF KERALA,
THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT REKHA C NAIR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
K.V.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J
———————————–
B.A. No.3399 of 2017
———————————–
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2017

ORDER

1.This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under

Sectionsection 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st

petitioner. They find themselves arrayed as the accused

in Crime No.344 of 2017 of Chandera Police Station, which

crime has been registered alleging offence punishable

under Sectionsection 498A read with Sectionsection 34 of the IPC.

3.The de facto complainant is the wife of the 1st petitioner.

It appears that the marriage between the 1st petitioner as

well as the de facto complainant was solemnized on

27.11.2005 and two daughters were born in the wedlock.

The parties fell apart in course of time which led to the

registration of the crime.

4.The learned counsel submits that the marriage still

subsists and if the petitioners are arrested and remanded
BA 3399/2017 2

all hopes for a reunion would evaporate.

5.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well.

6.The prosecution has no case that the petitioners had

physically assaulted the de-facto complainant. After

considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and

other facts and circumstances, it does not appear to me

that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are

required for an effective investigation. The requirements

for a proper investigation could be met with by imposing

appropriate condition to be observed by the petitioners.

7.In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the

following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer within ten days from today and
shall undergo interrogation. If they are proposed to
be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their
executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum.

(ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
BA 3399/2017 3

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) The petitioners shall make themselves
available for interrogation as and when required by
the Investigating officer and for all investigative
purposes whenever required.

(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any similar
offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioners shall not leave India without the
previous permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate.

(vi) If they surrender before the Magistrate, this
order shall not be applicable and the learned
Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

(vii) In case of violation of any of the above
conditions, the concerned court on being noticed of
that fact will be empowered to cancel the bail.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE

vps

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 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