SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jithesh E. vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 14TH POUSHA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 8704 of 2018

CRIME NO. 1421/2018 OF Payyannur Police Station, Kannur

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

1 JITHESH E., AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O. RAVEENDRAN, MATHARADAN HOUSE, KANAYI,
KOROM AMSOM, KANAYI DESOM, PAYYANNUR TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT.

2 M. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. KORAN, MATHARADAN HOUSE, KANAYI, KOROM AMSOM,
KANAYI DESOM, PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

3 USHA RAVEENDRAN, AGED 55 YEARS
W/O. M. RAVEENDRAN, MATHARADAN HOUSE, KANAYI,
KOROM AMSOM, KANAYI DESOM, PAYYANNUR TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031.

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
(CRIME NO.1421/2018 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION),
KANNUR DISTRICT – 670307.

BY SRI.AMJAD ALI-SR. PP.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 8704 of 2018

2

ORDER

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

2. The 1st applicant herein is the son of applicant Nos. 2 and

3. They find themselves arrayed as accused in Crime No.1421/2018

of the Payyannur Police Station under Section 498A of the IPC.

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

herein. Their marriage was solemnized on 27.05.2013. She filed a

complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyannur

alleging acts of ill-treatment and abuse by the applicants herein.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant

submitted that the 1st applicant herein has already approached the

Jurisdictional Family Court with a petition seeking divorce under

Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was during the pendency

of the said petition that the instant crime was registered against the

accused. 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.

Bail Appl..No. 8704 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 do 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

is proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their

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

only) each 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 the 1st applicant 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. The applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall
appear as and when they are called upon to do so.

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.

Bail Appl..No. 8704 of 2018

4

iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while they
are 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

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
avs

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh