SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nithin vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 25TH ASWINA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 6277 of 2018

CRIME NO. 22/2018 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 NITHIN
AGED 32 YEARS, S/O MANOHARAN, RESIDING AT NITHIN
BHAVAN, VENGOOR PO, AYOOR, KOLLAM DIST. 683 546

2 USHA
AGED 50 YEARS, W/O MANOHARAN, RESIDING AT NITHIN
BHAVAN, VENGOOR PO, AYOOR, KOLLAM DIST. 683 546

3 NITHEESH
AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT NITHIN BHAVAN, VENGOOR PO,
AYOOR, KOLLAM DIST. 683 546

4 SHEEBA
AGED 46 YEARS, W/O SUNDARESAN, RESIDING AT NITHIN
BHAVAN, VENGOOR PO, AYOOR, KOLLAM DIST. 683 546

5 SHYLAJA
AGED 44 YEARS, W/O. ANIRUSHANB, ARUNODAYAM, VENGOOR
PO, AYOOR, KOLLAM DIST. 683 546

BY ADV. SRI.S.JATHIN DAS

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PARIPPALLY
POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 571 THROUGH
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
682 031

BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI B JAYASURYA.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 6277 of 2018

2

ORDER

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

2. The applicants herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in

Crime No.22 of 2018 registered at the Parippally Police Station

under §§498A, 323, 324, 307 and 406 r/w §34 of the IPC. In

the course of investigation, §§ 324, 406 and 307 of the IPC were

deleted.

3. According to the prosecution, the 1 st applicant herein

married the de facto complainant in the year 2014. They are

blessed with a child. The applicant Nos. 2 to 5 are the near

relatives of the 1st applicant. It is alleged that the applicants

herein mentally and physically harassed the de facto complainant

demanding dowry. On 07.10.2017, they are alleged to have

assaulted the de facto complainant and caused injuries. Stating

these allegations, a complaint was filed, on 03.01.2018, based

on which, the aforesaid crime was registered.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants

submitted that the applicants have been unnecessarily dragged

to the Police Station with the sole objective of disturbing the
Bail Appl..No. 6277 of 2018

3

matrimonial home. According to the learned counsel, the long

delay in setting the law in motion would affect the credibility of

the version of the de facto complainant. Though the crime was

initially registered inter alia under Section 307 of the IPC, in the

course of investigation, it was revealed that no injuries

whatsoever were sustained by the de facto complainant.

According to the learned counsel, the 1 st applicant has a minor

daughter and all steps are being taken to settle the disputes in

an amicable manner. If the applicants herein are arrested and

detained, all hopes for a reunion would evaporate is the

submission.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor was also heard and I

have gone through the materials made available.

6. After going through the materials on record, I am of

the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the

applicants herein are not necessary for an effective investigation

in the instant case.

7. 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
Bail Appl..No. 6277 of 2018

4

they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail

on their executing a bond for 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 on every Saturdays between 9
A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of one month or till final
report is filed whichever is earlier.

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.

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
Dxy

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