SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jyothish vs State on 21 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 899 of 2019

CRIME NO. 1871/2018 OF Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

1 JYOTHISH, AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN UNNITHAN, KOVILAKOM, THENGODU,
KOTTUKKAL.P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM.

2 JITHIN, AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN UNNITHAN, KOVILAKOM, THENGODU,
KOTTUKKAL.P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM.

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

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

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695042.

* ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED:

VEENA G.NAIR, AGED 29 YEARS,
D/O.G.VENUGOPALAN NAIR,
VAISHNAVAM, MANNOTTUKONAM, PAYATTU VILA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 501.

* ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.02.2019 IN
CRL.M.A.NO.1 OF 2019.

ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN

R1 R2 BY SRI T R RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2019, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 899 of 2019 2

ORDER

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

2. The applicants herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime

No.1871 of 2018 of the Vizhinjam Police Station registered under

Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution allegation is that the 1 st applicant married

the de facto complainant on 23.01.2013. They have a minor child in

the wedlock. After marriage, the 1st applicant as well as the de facto

complainant went overseas to pursue his employment. Thereafter,

their relationship became strained. The specific case of the de facto

complainant is that the 1st applicant subjected her to ill-treatment and

harassment demanding dowry. There is also an allegation that the

brother of the 1st applicant attempted to commit sexual abuse. Based

on the complaint lodged by the victim, the crime was registered under

Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted

that there is no truth in the allegations. He would contend that the 1 st
Bail Appl..No. 899 of 2019 3

applicant has approached the Kottarakkara Family Court and had filed

a petition seeking divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty, which

is pending. He has also filed a petition under the Guardians and

Wards Act, 1980 seeking permanent custody of his minor child.

According to the learned counsel, both these petitions were filed as

early as on 16.10.2018 and notice was served on the respondent on

29.10.2018. It was after the receipt of the notice in the proceedings

that the FIS was furnished on 21.11.2018, based on which the subject

crime was registered.

5. The de facto complainant has entered appearance through

counsel. The learned counsel was permitted to address arguments.

According to the learned counsel, in her complaint, the de facto

complainant has narrated the details of harassment and ill treatment

meted out to her by the applicant. He would further point out that the

applicant is working abroad and if he is released on bail, he would

make himself scarce.

6. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who has made available

the materials on record.

Bail Appl..No. 899 of 2019 4

7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone

through the materials on record. It appears that the marriage still

subsists and proceedings are pending before the Family Court. The

allegations now levelled does not appear to be grave warranting arrest

and detention of the applicants. I am of the considered view that the

custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary for an

effective investigation in the instant case.

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 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. However,

the above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and
shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when
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.

iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

Bail Appl..No. 899 of 2019 5

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

DSV/21.2.19

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