SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sheeja C V vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.8042 OF 2019

CRIME NO.663/2019 OF MARAYAMUTTOM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:

SHEEJA C V
AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.ANEESH,
RESIDING PALLITHAZHATHU VEEDU,
VAVODU, VAZHICHAL.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

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

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
KOCHI-682031.

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.8042 OF 2019

2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

B.A No.8042 of 2019

Dated this the 25th day of November, 2019

ORDER

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.4 among the

four accused in the instant Crime No.663/2019 of Marayamuttom Police

Station, registered for offences punishable under Secs.306, 498A 304B

read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The subject crime was initially

registered on 26.08.2019 under Sec.174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 on account of the suicide of the lady victim in this case, who is the

daughter of the first informant/de facto complainant. The 1 st accused is the

husband of the deceased lady victim. The police after investigation have

altered the offences to those punishable as per the above referred offences

and the accused persons have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 therein.

The accused Nos.2 3 are the father and mother respectively of A-1 and

the petitioner herein (A-4) is the sister of A-1.

2. According to the learned prosecutor, during the course of the

investigation, they could recover a diary note said to have been written by the
Bail Appl..No.8042 OF 2019

3

deceased victim, wherein she has stated that the abovesaid four accused

persons are responsible for her death. According to the prosecution, the

accused persons are subjected the lady victim to constant ill-treatment and

cruelty and they had repeatedly demanded dowry, etc.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that A-4,

who is the sister of A-1, is a married lady and that she is living about

36 kms. away from the marital home of A-1 and the deceased victim, but

for certain functions she has been always living separately in her own

house, which is quite far away and further that the prosecution has not

been able to get any documentary evidence to connect the petitioner with

the ingredients for the offence of abetment to commit suicide.

4. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts

and circumstances of this case and more particularly, testing the facts of

the case in the light of the judicial reasonings, which has laid down the

ingredients necessary for the offence of abetment as per Sec.107 of the IPC

and the offence of abetment to commit suicide under Sec.306 of the IPC,

etc., this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial interrogation

of the petitioner (A-4) may not be necessary, for effectuating the fair and

proper conduct of the investigation. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the
Bail Appl..No.8042 OF 2019

4

event of the petitioner being arrested in relation to the instant crime, then

she shall be released on bail on her executing bond for Rs.40,000/-

(Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on her furnishing two solvent sureties

for the like sum each, both to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer

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

conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of
similar nature.

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as
and when required in that connection.

(iv) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or
attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

5. If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the

jurisdictional Court concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider

the application for cancellation of bail, if required, and pass appropriate

orders in accordance with law.

6. It is pointed out that the petitioner was earlier pregnant and she

was given birth to a baby on 11.11.2019 and that she would appear for

interrogation process before the Investigating Officer, immediately after

she is medically fit for such purpose. Taking note of the abovesaid aspect it
Bail Appl..No.8042 OF 2019

5

is ordered that –

The Investigating Officer will issue notice to the petitioner to appear

before him for interrogation purposes, after some time and after

ascertaining about the medical fitness to appear before him for

interrogation process, as she has recently delivered a child.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application

will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
vgd

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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