SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ullas G. vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 1ST MAGHA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 161 of 2019

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2, 3 4:

1 ULLAS G., AGED 25 YEARS,
S/O. GANESAN, RESIDING AT ‘UMESH BHAVANAM’,
PUTHIYAVILA, KAREELAKULANGARA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 772.

2 PADMAVATHY, AGED 56 YEARS,
W/O. GANESAN, RESIDING AT ‘UMESH BHAVANAM’,
PUTHIYAVILA, KAREELAKULANGARA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 772.

3 GANESAN, AGED 64 YEARS,
S/O. KUTTAPPAN, RESIDING AT ‘UMESH BHAVANAM’,
PUTHIYAVILA, KAREELAKULANGARA P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 772.

BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031.

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KANAKAKUNNU POLICE STATION,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA 690 735.

SRI. K.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 161 of 2019 2

ORDER

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

2. The applicants herein are accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime

No.22 of 2019 of the Kanakakunnu Police Station registered under

Sections 323, 341, 407, 406 and 498A read with Section 34 of the

IPC. The 1st accused in the said crime is the son of applicants 2 and

3 and the brother of the 1 st applicant. The de facto complainant is

the wife of the 1st accused.

3. The records placed before this Court reveals that the

crime was registered based on a complaint lodged by the de facto

complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,

Haripad levelling allegations of matrimonial cruelty. It was

contended that the 1st accused married the de facto complainant on

14.11.2017 and she started living with him in the matrimonial

home. The applicants herein along with the 1 st accused are alleged

to have ill-treated her demanding dowry. She specifically alleges

that the 1st accused assaulted her causing injuries.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants
Bail Appl..No. 161 of 2019 3

contended that the entire allegations are levelled against the 1 st

accused, who is an officer in the Central reserve Police Force. The

applicants, who are parents and brother of the 1 st accused, have

been unnecessarily roped in with the sole object of harassing them,

contends the learned counsel. It is urged that the police have

registered the crime without even considering the genuineness of

the allegations levelled by the de facto complainant as against the

applicants.

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,

submits 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 is not necessary for an

effective investigation in the instant case.

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants
Bail Appl..No. 161 of 2019 4

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 each of

them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty

thousand only) 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
shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every
Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.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

DSV/- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

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