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