SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manojkumar vs State Of Kerala on 1 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 9TH ASWINA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.6947 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 2119/2019 DATED 19-09-2019 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ADOOR

CRIME NO.1847/2019 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

MANOJKUMAR
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. UNNIKRISHNA NAIR,
KRISHNA SADANAM VEEDU,
KULANJIKKADU, THOTTUVA,
PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.6947 OF 2019

2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

B.A. No.6947 of 2019
———————————–
Dated this the 01st day of October, 2019

ORDER

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.1 in the instant

Annexure-A Crime No.1847/2019 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta,

which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.323, 324,

506, 498A 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Secs.75 77 of the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection ) Act, 2015, on the basis of the FI Statement

given by the lady de facto complainant on 10.09.2019 at about 6.20 p.m., in

respect of the alleged incidents, which happened for the period from

02.06.2009 to the last incident which had occurred on 09.09.2019. The

petitioner herein is the husband of the lady de facto complainant in this

case. Accused Nos.2 3 in the instant crime are the father and mother

respectively of the petitioner herein (A-1).

2. The prosecution case in short is that after the marriage of the

abovesaid spouses, the accused persons had treated the lady victim with

cruelty and harassment and that they have demanded more dowry from her

and that the petitioner used to frequently assault her. Further that on
Bail Appl..No.6947 OF 2019

3

09.09.2019 at about 7.30 p.m., the petitioner (A-1) had slapped the lady on

her face by hand and with a torch and also whacked her brother Rahul with

a chopper and that A-3 had beaten the lady de facto complainant’s another

brother Rakesh on his backside with a walking-stick and A-2 had beaten

the de facto complainant and A-1 had also beaten his child with a torch and

also forcibly poured alcohol to his child’s mouth and thereby they have

committed the abovesaid offence. The petitioner (A-1) has been arrested in

relation to this case on 11.09.2019 and after his remand, has been under

detention since then.

3. Sri.K.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and

fabricated and that the entire incidents alleged to have happened on

09.09.2019 at about 7.30 p.m. are absolutely false and that as a matter of

fact the truth is otherwise out and that a counter case as per Annexure-B

Crime No.1848/2019 of Adoor Police Station has been registered for

offences punishable under Secs.451, 323, 354, 427 and 34 of the IPC, on the

basis of the FI Statement given by the petitioner’s mother (A-3) herein on

10.09.2019 at about 8.15 p.m., in respect of the alleged incident, which

happened on 09.09.2019 at about 7.30 p.m. Further that, the scene of

occurrence, day and time of occurrence of both Annexures.A B crimes are
Bail Appl..No.6947 OF 2019

4

the same. Further that, the two brothers of the lady de facto complainant

herein and three other identified persons have been arrayed as the accused

in Annexure-B Crime No.1848/2019 and the allegations in Annexure-B

crime is to the effect that on the same day at around the same, when the de

facto complainant and his parents were in their house, the two brothers of

the petitioner’s wife had come there and assaulted the petitioner and his

parents (who are the three accused in Annexure-A crime) and that it is only

to wriggle out of the said criminal culpability in Annexure-B crime is that

false allegations have been made in the instant Annexure-A crime.

Accordingly, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at any

rate, as the petitioner has already undergone detention since 11.09.2019,

his further detention may not be necessary and that this Court may order

him to release on regular bail, subject to any stringent conditions.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the grant

of regular bail and has pointed out that there is a possibility of the

petitioner intimidating and influencing the witnesses, more particularly,

the lady de facto complainant, if he is let out on bail.

5. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts

and circumstances of this case, more particularly, taking note of the aspects

borne out on the counter case in Annexure-B crime, wherein the de facto
Bail Appl..No.6947 OF 2019

5

complainant therein is A-3 herein and the accused therein are the two

brothers of the lady de facto complainant herein and the other identified

persons and as the scene of occurrence in both the cases is the same, etc.

and also considering the fact that the petitioner has already undergone

detention since 11.09.2019, this Court is persuaded to take the view that the

further detention of the petitioner may not be necessary and so he could be

released on regular bail subject to stringent conditions. However, taking

note of the abovesaid apprehension raised by the prosecution, it is

proposed to order as a safeguard that the petitioner shall not enter into or

reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the police station, where the

lady de facto complainant is residing, until the conclusion of the

investigation process in this case, subject to certain exceptions which would

be dealt with hereinafter.

6. Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on

regular bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty

Thousand only) and on his furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum

both to the satisfaction of the competent court below concerned. However,

the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions:

(i). The petitioner will report before the Investigating Officer
concerned at any time between 9:00 a.m. and 1 p.m. on
every 2nd and 4th Saturdays for the next six months.

Thereafter, the petitioner shall report before the Investigating
Bail Appl..No.6947 OF 2019

6

Officer as and when directed by the said officer.

(ii). The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation
process and shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the
defacto complainant/victim, witnesses; nor shall tamper with
the evidence.

(iii). The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on
bail.

(iv) The petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within
the territorial limits of the police station, where the lady de
facto complainant is residing, for a period of two months
from today or till the conclusion of the investigation process
whichever is earlier, except for the limited purpose of
reporting before the Police in connection with the abovesaid
crime or any other crimes or for attending any courts in
relation to this case or for contacting lawyer/ Advocate
concerned.

(v) If the petitioner has any emergent and genuine personal
needs to visit the said area, he may do so only with the prior
permission of the Investigating Officer concerned.

7. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

jurisdictional Court concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider

the application for cancellation of bail, if required, and pass appropriate

orders in accordance with law.

8. Since the petitioner herein (A-1) and the lady de facto

complainant are spouses, it may be only in the fitness of things that efforts

could be made for mediatory resolution of the disputes between them and if

either the accused persons or the lady de facto complainant are interested

for any mediatory efforts, then they may approach the jurisdictional
Bail Appl..No.6947 OF 2019

7

Magistrate’s court concerned (Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court,

Adoor), who is dealing with the said case. Thereupon, the learned

Magistrate may refer all the parties concerned to the nearest Mediation

Centre.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application

will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
vgd

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