SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manesh vs State Of Kerala on 1 February, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

FRIDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 12TH MAGHA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 442 of 2019

CRIME NO.27 OF 2019 OF KAIPAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR DISTRICT

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

MANESH, AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. DHARMAN, PONATHIL HOUSE,
EDATHIRUTHI VILLAGE, KODUNGALOOR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT – 680 703.

BY ADVS.SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
SRI.MAHESH BHANU.S
SMT.MANJU E.R.
SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK
SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR
SRI.R.ANIL
SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR
SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM. KOCHI – 682 031.

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA:442/2019 2

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

2. The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.27 of

2019 of the Kaipamangalam Police Station, registered at the

instance of his wife under Sections 323, 324, 294(b), 506 and

498A of the IPC.

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

According to her, her marriage between the applicant herein was

solemnized on 10.05.2003. They are blessed with two children,

who are aged 13 and 7 respectively. The applicant was employed

in Gulf. It appears that he returned back from Gulf in the month

of November, 2018. She specifically alleges that on 30.11.2018 at

3 p.m., the applicant herein, in an inebriated state, assaulted his

wife and caused injuries. In her detailed complaint, she also

alleges that the applicant used to subject her to cruelty and ill

treatment demanding dowry.

BA:442/2019 3

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant

submitted that there is no truth in the allegations. He pointed out

that the applicant herein has approached the Family Court and

filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty as early as

on 12.12.2018. It is after receiving summons in the said petition,

that a private complaint was lodged on 26.12.2018 leveling

untenable allegations.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

He submitted that records reveal that the de facto complainant

was examined by a doctor on 30.11.2018 and some minor injuries

were noted.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced.

Admittedly, the applicant is the husband of the de facto

complainant and they have two children. There are disputes

between them and proceedings were already initiated before the

Family Court. After going through the materials, I am of the

considered view that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is

not necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The
BA:442/2019 4

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.

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.

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
KRJ

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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