SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Suneer K.I. vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 6 December, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 8119 of 2018

CRIME NO. 1532/2018 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 SUNEER K.I., AGED 33 YEARS
XS/O.IBRAHIM, KOTTANCHERY HOUSE,
THEKKAN MALIPURAM AZHEEKAL P.O., NORTH PARUR.

2 IBRAHIM, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O.BABA, KOTTANCHERY HOUSE, THEKKAN MALIPURAM
AZHEEKAL P.O., NORTH PARUR.

3 SUBAIDA, AGED 54 YEARS
W/O.IBRAHIM, KOTTANCHERY HOUSE,
THEKKAN MALIPURAM AZHEEKAL P.O., NORTH PARUR.

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NJARAKKAL,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 682 505.

2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

SRI T R RENJITH PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 8119 of 2018 2

ORDER

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

2. The applicants herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime

No.1532 of 2018 of the Njarakkal Police Station, registered under

Section 498A r/w. Sec. 34 of the IPC.

3. The 1st applicant is the son of applicant Nos.2 and 3. The de

facto complainant is the wife of the 1 st applicant. The marriage between

the de facto complainant and the 1 st applicant was solemnised on

16.12.2012. According to the de facto complainant, the applicants

herein subjected her to persistent mental and physical harassment

demanding dowry.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted

that the parties fell apart due to minor differences and though earnest

efforts were taken to settle the disputes, due to various reasons, the

efforts did not materialise. He points out that though the provision was

enacted to check and curb the menace of dowry, in the instant case, the

provisions are being misused. The complaint has been filed in the heat of

the moment and, according to the learned counsel, if the applicants are

arrested and remanded, the chances of settlement and reunion will be

irrevocably ruined.

Bail Appl..No. 8119 of 2018 3

5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone

through the materials that have been made available. The allegations

now levelled do not appear to be grave warranting arrest and detention

of the applicants, who are the husband and in-laws of the de facto

complainant. I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation

of the applicants are not necessary for an effective investigation in the

instant case.

6. 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 their executing

a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) each with

two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be

subject to the following conditions:

(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
one month or till final report is filed whichever is earlier. The
applicant Nos. 2 and 3 shall appear before the investigating
officer 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) They shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

Bail Appl..No. 8119 of 2018 4

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
IAP

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