IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 30TH MAGHA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 684 of 2019
CRIME NO. 684/2018 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR CITY
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
SUNIL VIJAYAN, AGED 31 YEARS,
S/O. VIJAYAN, PARETHEKKATHIL HOUSE, KALKOONTHAL,
ORUMBUM CHOLA, ERATTAYAR, IDUKKI, PIN-685514.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SAJU
SRI.A.V.SAJAN
SMT.NEELANJANA NAIR
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THROUGH
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI SR. PP.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2019
ALONG WITH B.A. 952 OF 2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
BA:684 952 OF 2019 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 30TH MAGHA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 952 of 2019
CRIME NO. 684/2018 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR CITY
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
VIJAYAN, AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O.KUNJIKUTTAN, PARETHEKKATHIL HOUSE,
KALKOONTHAL UDUMBUM CHOLA, ERATTAYAR,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685514.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SAJU
SRI.A.V.SAJAN
SMT.NEELANJANA NAIR
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION,
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2019
ALONG WITH B.A. NO.684 OF 2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
BA:684 952 OF 2019 3
ORDER
These applications are filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The applicant in B.A.No.684 of 2019 is the 1st accused in
Crime No.684 of 2018 registered at the Nedupuzha Police Station
under Sections 498A, 354, 323 and 506 of the IPC. The applicant in
B.A.No.952 of 2019 is the father of the 1st accused.
3. The de facto complainant is the wife of the 1 st accused.
According to her, she is a divorcee and has a child in her earlier
marriage. On 28.9.2016, she had occasion to meet the 1 st accused and
they started residing together as husband and wife in an apartment.
She asserts that she has not married the 1st accused legally. She
further alleges that they have a child in the said relationship. The
specific allegation is that the 1 st accused used to record videos and
threatened that he would upload the same in the internet. She also
alleges that on 29.10.2018, the applicants herein had assaulted her
causing injuries.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted
that three is no truth in the allegations. According to the learned
counsel, the marriage between the parties were solemnized in a legal
manner. However, the same has not been registered. It is submitted
BA:684 952 OF 2019 4
that on 29.10.2018, the 1 st accused was assaulted by the brothers of
the de facto complainant and he had suffered very serious injuries. To
substantiate his contention, he would refer to the would certificate
dated 29.10.2018 issued from the Thrikkakara Municipal Co-operative
Hospital. It is further submitted that insofar as the 2 nd accused is
concerned, the only allegation is that he had caught the hand of the
lady. The learned counsel would also refer to Annexure-A3 petition
filed by the 1st accused before the Family Court seeking divorce.
5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone
through the materials made available. Records reveal that the parties
had been living together for a sufficiently long time and they have a
child. The relationship got strained and an incident took place on
29.10.2019. The 1st accused as well as the de facto complainant had
suffered injuries. Going by the wound certificate of the lady, it
appears that the only injury suffered by her is an injury on her lower
lip. The 1st accused has also sustained traumatic head injury and
facial trauma as is evident by the certificate dated 29.10.2018.
Having regard to the facts, I am of the view that the custodial
interrogation of the applicants are not necessary for an effective
investigation.
In the result, these applications are allowed. The applicants
shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from
BA:684 952 OF 2019 5
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 Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum. However, the above order shall be
subject to the following conditions:
i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and
shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every
Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of two
months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.
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.
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
krj
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
