SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Tinto D.Thankachan vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 6536 of 2018

CRIME NO. 1280/2018 OF PUTHOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

1 TINTO D.THANKACHAN,
AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O THANKACHAN, ROSE VILLA(H),
THURUTHEERAMBALAM, KULAKKADA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.

2 ROSAMMA THANKACHAN,
AGED 55 YEARS,
W/O THANKACHAN, ROSE VILLA(H),
THURUTHEERAMBALAM, KULAKKADA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
PIN-682 031.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 6536 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 2nd applicant. They are

being proceeded against for having committed offence punishable under

Sections 498A, 406, 323 and 342 r/w Section 34 IPC.

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

marriage was solemnised on 1.5.2017. The case of the prosecution is

that the applicants persistently harassed the de facto complainant both

physically and mentally demanding dowry.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted

that they are innocent. According to the learned counsel, except for

certain matrimonial disputes between the parties, there are no serious

disputes. The learned counsel submitted that the applicants have been

unnecessarily dragged to the police station with the sole objective of

disturbing the matrimonial home. It is urged that the police have

registered the crime without even considering the genuineness of the
Bail Appl..No. 6536 of 2018 3

allegations levelled by the de facto complainant. 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.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that

though serious allegations are levelled, no materials have been produced

along with the complaint to show that any physical injuries were

inflicted. In the facts and circumstances, it would be sufficient if the

applicants are ordered to co-operate with the investigation, submitted

the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced. After going

through the materials on record, I am of the considered view that the

custodial interrogation of the applicants are not necessary for an

effective investigation in the instant case.

7. 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
Bail Appl..No. 6536 of 2018 4

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

subject to the following conditions:

(i) The 1st applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and
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 2 nd
applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and
when directed.

(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
IAP

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