SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rohith J.Vester vs State Of Kerala on 23 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 7096 of 2018

CRIME NO. 1413/2018 OF MECICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

1 ROHITH J.VESTER,
AGED 29 YEARS,
S/O.CRYMON VESTER,
TC 71/699, USHUS, KOCHULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2 CRYMON VESTER,
AGED 61 YEARS,
ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT SECRETARY (RTD.),
TC 71/699, USHUS, KOCHULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3 CELIN VESTER,
AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O.CRYMON VESTER,
RTD. PROFESSOR,
TC 71/699, USHUS, KOCHULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADVS.
SRI.G.SUDHEER
SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (H-308)

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

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

2 ADDL.R2.
DR.STEPHIN MUTHAYYAN,
D/O.JENET MUTHAYYAN, STEPHIN HOUSE, CHOWARA PO. (VIA),
BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695501.
(ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08.11.2018 IN
CRL.M.A.1/2018.)

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B. JAYASURYA

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2018, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 7096 of 2018 2

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

2. The 1st applicant is the son of the applicant Nos. 2 and

3. The de facto complainant is the wife of the 1 st applicant. Based on

her complaint, Crime No.1413 of 2018 of the Medical College Police

Station, Thiruvananthapuram has been registered under Sections

498A, 354A, 354 and 509 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

3. According to the de facto complainant, she married the

1st applicant on 13.04.2016. She was working as a Dental Surgeon

then and the 1st applicant was a software professional. About 125

sovereigns of gold and a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs were entrusted with

the applicants by her parents. She alleges that she was subjected to

cruelty and harassment by the applicants demanding more money

and ornaments. Serious allegations are raised against the 2 nd

applicant. She alleges that after the marriage, the 1 st applicant went

abroad for various assignments and it was the 2 nd applicant, who

used to take her to hospital. She alleges that on 8.6.2016, while she
Bail Appl..No. 7096 of 2018 3

was returning from the hospital in a car driven by the 2 nd applicant,

he touched her thighs and sexually assaulted her. She also alleges

that on 25.06.2017, the 2 nd accused entered her bedroom and

subjected her to sexual harassment. She further alleges that the 1 st

applicant returned back from Germany on 10.10.2016, and though

she raised her complaints, he did not respond. It is alleged that

thereafter, the 1st applicant also joined hands with the applicant Nos.

2 and 3 and committed acts of mental and physical harassment.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants would

contend that the allegations are baseless. According to the learned

counsel, even according to the de facto complainant, on 22.04.2018,

she had left the matrimonial home. It is submitted that if the

allegations are true and that the 2 nd applicant had, in fact, sexually

assaulted her on 8.6.2016 and on 25.6.2017, there is no reason why

she continued to stay in the matrimonial home till 22.04.2018. It is

further submitted that though the de facto complainant left the

matrimonial home in the month of April, 2018, information was

furnished and crime was registered only on 24.09.2018. This delay

would show that the allegations are false and concocted for the

purpose, submits the learned counsel. The learned counsel would
Bail Appl..No. 7096 of 2018 4

further submit that complaints were filed before the Women’s

Commission and also before the Legal Service Authority and the

parties were referred to the Family Welfare Committee. However,

they did not recommend the registration of a criminal case. It is

further submitted that the 1st applicant has filed a petition before the

Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking restitution of conjugal

rights and the proceeding is pending. If the applicants are arrested

and detained, they would be subjected to gross humiliation is the

submission.

5. The 2nd respondent has entered appearance and the

learned counsel has filed a detailed objection. It is submitted that

the allegations are extremely grave and in a case of this nature,

arming the applicants with an order of pre-arrest bail would

adversely affect the investigation. It is submitted that the 164

statement of the victim has been recorded and she has reiterated

the allegations. The learned counsel would contend that the 1 st

applicant is not in India and reliance is placed on the decision of this

Court in Souda Beevi and Another v. S.I. Of Police and Others

[2011(3) KHC 795] to bring home his point that relief of anticipatory

bail cannot be granted to him. The learned counsel has also referred
Bail Appl..No. 7096 of 2018 5

to Annexures-R2(a) and (b) and it is submitted that she had

obtained treatment on 18.12.2017 and 3.7.2018 respectively.

6. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who opposed the

prayer.

7. I have considered the submission advanced. The

marriage between the parties was solemnized in the month of April,

2016. The allegations of sexual abuse and harassment is against the

2nd applicant. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing

for the applicants, though the incident of sexual abuse was in June.

2016 and June 2017, even according to the victim she had stayed in

the matrimonial home till April 2018. It was much later, i.e., on

24.9.2018, that information was lodged resulting in the registration

of the crime. The wound certificates, which are pressed into service

by the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent, does not

show that any injuries whatsoever were sustained by the 2 nd

respondent. As held by the Apex Court in Preeti Gupta and

Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another [2010 (7) SCC 667],

it is a matter of common experience that some of the complaints

under Section 498A of the IPC are filed in the heat of the moment
Bail Appl..No. 7096 of 2018 6

over trivial issues without proper deliberations. Some amount of

exaggeration is visible in the complaint filed in the instant case.

When the matter had come for admission, the parties were

requested to explore the possibilities of a settlement of their

disputes so that the social fiber, peace and tranquility remains intact.

However, the 2nd respondent refused to take recourse to mediation.

The parties are all well educated and the applicants are not persons

with criminal antecedents. Even the prosecution has no case that the

applicants would make themselves scarce or that their custodial

interrogation is inevitable. After carefully scrutinizing the entire facts

and circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the custodial

interrogation of the applicants are not necessary for an effective

investigation in the instant case.

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 they

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

of them 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:
Bail Appl..No. 7096 of 2018 7

i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and
the 1st applicant 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. The
applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall appear as and when they are
called upon to do so.

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) 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
DSV/-

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