SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 12 December, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 8187 of 2018

CRIME NO.1599/2018 OF ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

SANTHOSH, AGED 34 YEARS,
S/O. GEORGE, CHETTAKARICKAL HOUSE,
PERINGULAM P.O, ERATTUPETTA,
KOTTAYAM-686 582

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SMT.BHANU THILAK
SRI.DIPU JAMES
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SRI.SETHURAM DHARMAPALAN

RESPONDENTS/STATE COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682 031.

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 121, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

SRI T R RENJITH PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 8187 of 2018 2

ORDER

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

2. The applicant herein is the 2 nd accused in Crime No.1599 of

2018 registered at the Erattupetta Police Station under Sections 376(2)

(f)(n), 354 323 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The victim is a lady aged 33 years. She used to work as a

nurse in Delhi. In the month of December, 2012, she met the 1 st

accused, one Joshy, and in course of time, they started having a

relationship. The 1st accused is the maternal uncle of the applicant

herein. He is alleged to have assured the victim that he would marry her

and that relationship continued till 2018. Their relationship became

strained and several proceedings have been initiated against each other

by both sides. The specific allegation against the applicant is that on

14.8.2013, he caught her hand and attempted to outrage her modesty.

Stating these allegations, a complaint was lodged on 10.10.2018 leading

to the registration of the crime.

4. Though initially the Crime was registered incorporating

Section 376 of the IPC, later the aforesaid Section was deleted and

Section 498A was added.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted

that the FI statement was recorded about 5 years after the alleged
Bail Appl..No. 8187 of 2018 3

incident involving the applicant and hence no credibility can be given to

her statement. It is further submitted that the de facto complainant has

initiated proceedings against the applicant and the 1 st accused before the

Family Court, Pala seeking injunction against forcible disposition and the

1st accused has instituted a civil suit before the Munsiff’s Court,

Erattupetta seeking injunction and other reliefs. The applicant has been

dragged in the fight between the de facto complainant and the 1 st

accused as he is a near relative, contends the learned counsel.

6. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and have perused

the case diary. Insofar as the applicant herein is concerned, the

allegation is that he caught the hands of the de facto complainant and

attempted to outrage her modesty sometime in the year 2013. Having

gone through the sequence of events and the disputes between the de

facto complainant and the 1st accused, I am of the view that the

custodial interrogation of the applicant herein is not necessary for an

effective investigation.

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall

appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and

shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested,

he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/-

(Rupees Forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like
Bail Appl..No. 8187 of 2018 4

sum. However, the above order shall be subject to the following

conditions:

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and
shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every
Saturdays between 9 A.M and 10 A.M. for a period of one
month or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

ii) He 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
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
IAP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh