IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 8344 of 2018
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
JERO JOSE, AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.M.K.JOSE, MENACHERY HOUSE, KARUMALLOOR P.O.,
MANAKKAPPADY, PIN – 683 511.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN
SMT.A.G.NISHA
SMT.C.V.VEENA
SMT.M.ARDRA KRISHNAN
SMT.SUSAN JACOB (S-3481)
SRI.CHRISTINE MATHEW
SRI.K.SUNIL
SRI.V.S.SREEJITH
RESPONDENTS/STATE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KORATTY POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 308.
3 NEETHU K.RAPHEL, AGED 31 YEARS,
W/O.JERO JOSE, KACHAPPILLY HOUSE, KADUKUTTY,
THRISSUR, PIN – 680 309.
BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 8344 of 2018
2
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.654 of 2018
registered at the Koratty Police Station under Section 498A of the IPC.
3. The de facto complainant is the wife of the applicant herein.
Their marriage was solemnized on 02.10.2011 and they are blessed with
two children. According to the de facto complainant after marriage, the
applicant subjected her to cruelty and harassment demanding dowry.
Stating these allegations, a complaint was lodged, based on which
subject crime was registered.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted
that the marriage still subsists and for trivial reasons, an attempt is
being made to destroy the relationship. He points out that though the
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.
Bail Appl..No. 8344 of 2018
3
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 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.
6. 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. 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 10 A.M and 1 P.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.
Bail Appl..No. 8344 of 2018
4
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
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
avs/17.12.2018
