SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nikhil Lal vs State Of Kerala on 13 December, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1939

Bail Appl..No. 8244 of 2017 ()
——————————-
FIR NO. 200/2017 OF MEPPADI POLICE STATION , WAYANAD
—————-

PETITIONER:
———-

NIKHIL LAL,
S/O.NARAYANAN KUTTY, AGED 33 YEARS,
VATTAKANDY HOUSE, NELLIKODE P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673016.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SRI.SABU GEORGE
SRI.S.NITHIN (ANCHAL)

RESPONDENT(S):
————–

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

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MEPPADI POLICE STATION, KALPATTA, WAYANAD-673577.

* ADDL R3 IMPLEADED

3. V.V.ATHIRA, D/O M.SURESH,
AGED 29 YEARS, THULASI HOUSE, KARINGAM VAYAL,
COTTANAD P.O, MEPPADI, WAYANAD-673 577.

* ADDL R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.12.2017
IN CRL.MA NO.13231/2017

R1,R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI SAJJU.S.
R3 BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
K.V.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J
———————————–
B.A. No.8244 of 2017
———————————–
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2017

ORDER

1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

2.The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in Crime No.200 of

2017 of Meppady Police Station, registered alleging offences

punishable under sections 498A, 323, 294(b), 506, 354, 406

read with 34 of the IPC.

3.The de facto complainant is the wife of the petitioner herein.

The marriage between the parties took place on 28.5.2015.

The petitioner who was working abroad left India, two months

after the wedding, to rejoin work. Alleging that the petitioner

and his family members subjected the de facto complainant to

physical and mental harassment with a view to coerce her to

bring more dowry, a complaint was filed before the learned

Magistrate which ultimately led to the registration of the crime

on 19.7.2017.

BA 8244/2017 2

4.In the course of proceedings, the de facto complainant filed an

application seeking intervention.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for

the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

as early as on 2.4.2016, the de facto complainant had

preferred Annexure-B complainant before the Women’s Cell,

Wayanad, wherein she stated in unmistakable terms that she

had been living separately for the past 9 months. The only

allegation in the complaint is that there arose some

misunderstanding between the wife and husband when a

message sent from her male friend was found in her mobile

phone. Her only request was to summon the parties and to

settle the issue. She had no case then that the petitioner

herein nor his family members had subjected her to cruelty or

harassment attracting the offence under section 498A of the

IPC. It is also submitted that the the petitioner herein has filed

a petition on 17.6.2017 seeking divorce before the Family

Court, Kozhikode and it was on receipt of summons that the de

facto complainant has ventured to file the instant complaint

BA 8244/2017 3

leading to the registration of the crime.

7.The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent on the other hand

submitted that specific allegations were not raised earlier as

she was optimistic of a reunion. However, it is not disputed

that their joint residence was only during the first two months.

8.The learned public prosecutor on instructions submits that the

petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents. It is

also submitted that incidents of physical cruelty are not borne

out by medical records.

9.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the

materials in support thereof, the character and antecedents of

the accused, the relationship between the parties, and

attendant facts and circumstances, I am of the view that

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the

instant case.

In the result, this bail application is allowed, subject to the

following conditions:

i) It is directed that in the event of the arrest of the
petitioner in connection with the Crime No.200 of
2017 of Meppady Police Station, he shall be
released on bail on his executing a bond for

BA 8244/2017 4

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with
two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the officer effecting the arrest.

ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the
investigation and shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when required.

iii) The petitioner 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 from disclosing such facts to the
court or to any police officer.

iv) The petitioner 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

vps 14/12

/True Copy/

PS to Judge

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh