IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 2ND MAGHA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.9064 OF 2019
CRIME NO.1324/2019 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION , Kollam
ACCUSED:
RAJEEV.K.RAJ
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. KANAKARAJ, MULAMOOTIL VEEDU,
PULLICHIRA, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.ARUN BABU
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 KERALA STATE
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA – 682 031.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM – 691011.
SRI.SANTHOSH PETER – PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.9064 OF 2019
2
Bail Application No.9064 of 2019
———————————————-
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime
No.1324 of 2019 of Eravipuram Police Station registered under
Sections 323, 498A, 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015. The accused is none other than the
husband of the de facto complainant. The accusation in the
case is that the accused used to subject the de facto
complainant to cruelty when they were residing together. It is
also alleged that the accused used to assault the child of the
de facto complainant in her first marriage.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
as also the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. It is seen from the materials on record that
the case arose on account of the matrimonial discord between
Bail Appl..No.9064 OF 2019
3
the accused and the de facto complainant. It is also seen that
the crime is registered after the petitioner has instituted a
petition for divorce before the Family Court, Thrissur. I have
seen the First Information Statement, and I find that the
allegations as regards the offence under Section 75 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are
all vague and sketchy. Further, the aforesaid allegation
pertains to an alleged overt act took place in the year 2017
and the case is one registered in 2019.
5. In the circumstances, in the light of the decision
of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312, having regard to
the nature and gravity of the accusation, the character and
antecedents of the accused, the possibility of the accused
fleeing from justice, and other facts and circumstances, I am
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the
following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer within
ten days from today. He shall also make himself
Bail Appl..No.9064 OF 20194
available for interrogation before the Investigating
Officer as and when directed by the Investigating
Officer in writing to do so;
ii) If the petitioner is arrested prior to, or after his
appearance before the Investigating Officer in
terms of this order, he shall be released from
custody on execution of a bond for Rs.25,000/- with
two sureties each for the like sum.
(iii) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate
the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to
tamper with the evidence of the prosecution.
iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other
offence while on bail.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
PV
