SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vineeth vs Station House Officer on 25 September, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 3RD ASWINA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.6484 OF 2019

CRIME NO.446/2019 OF Museum Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

PETITIONER/S:

VINEETH
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.G.VIJAYENDRAKURUP, GREESHMAM, NEAR YWCA, TOWN
WARD, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA

RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695001

2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAMA COCHIN-682031

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

B.A.No. 6484 of 2019

Dated this the 25th day of September, 2019
ORDER

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in

Crime No.446/2019 of Thiruvananthapuram Museum Police Station,

which has been registered for offences punishable under Sec.498A of

the SectionI.P.C. on the basis of Anx. A-1 first information statement (FIS)

given by the lady defacto complainant on 7.3.2019 in respect of the

alleged incidents, which happened for the period from 7.2.2018 to

19.2.2019. The lady defacto complainant in this case is the wife of the

petitioner. The prosecution case in short is that after the marriage of

the said spouses on 4.2.2018, the petitioner has consistently treated

her with cruelty and harassment and that earlier they had studied in

Ireland and he had taken a personal loan from the father of the lady

defacto complainant to meet his education fees in Ireland and he

refused to give back the said amount and he quarreled with the

defacto complainant and her family members regarding the issue of

return of the money and that the petitioner has taken away her gold

ornaments, etc. and the petitioner had assaulted and attacked her and

thereby he has committed the abovesaid offences.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
B.A.No. 6484/19 – : 3 :-

that the abovesaid allegations are false and incorrect and further that

the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and

further that the petitioner has only recently come back from Ireland

and is fully prepared to take part in the mediation proceedings that

may be conducted through the nearest mediation centre attached to

the trial court concerned and that this Court may order to grant him

anticipatory bail subject to any stringent conditions.

3. The learned Prosecutor and the learned counsel

appearing for the defacto complainant have opposed the grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The learned Prosecutor submits

that going by the nature of the allegations disclosed against the

petitioner in the instant case, there is every possibility of the

petitioner intimidating and influencing the witnesses, more

particularly the lady defacto complainant and her family members, if

he is let out on bail.

4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances in this

case, this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial

interrogation of the petitioner may not be really required or

warranted for effective conduct of the investigation in the above

crime. However, the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the

likelihood of the petitioner intimidating and influencing the
B.A.No. 6484/19 – : 4 :-

witnesses, including the defacto complainant, cannot be ruled out by

this Court and as a safeguard, it is proposed to order that the

petitioner shall not enter into or reside anywhere within the

territorial limits of the Police Station concerned, where the lady

defacto complainant is now residing, subject to certain exceptions

which are dealt with herein after. So also, the investigating officer

should ensure that timely steps are taken to ascertain from the lady

defacto complainant whether she or her family members have been

threatened or intimidated by the petitioner or men under him in any

manner and if anything adverse is brought to the notice of the

investigating officer, then the said officer shall take immediate strict

action in the matter for cancellation of the bail granted to the

petitioner herein. Since the petitioner has now returned from

Ireland, he should surrender his passport before the trial court

concerned and the petitioner should fully co-operate with the IO in

the interrogation process. It is brought to the notice of this Court that

the petitioner’s permanent residence is in Pathanamthitta District,

whereas the lady defacto complainant is residing in

Thiruvananthapuram District and the trial court is also at

Thiruvananthapuram. Accordingly, the following directions and

orders are passed:

B.A.No. 6484/19 – : 5 :-

(i) The petitioner shall personally appear before the

Investigating Officer in relation to Crime No.446/2019
of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, at
9:00 a.m. on any day on or before 30.9.2019 to subject
himself for interrogation purposes or within such other
time that may be extended by the Investigating Officer
concerned.

(ii) The petitioner will fully co-operate with the
interrogation process.

(iii) After completing the above interrogation process, in case
the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioner then he
shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on
furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum each to
the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.
Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail will be
subject to following conditions:-

(a) The petitioner shall report before the
Investigating Officer on 2nd and 4th Saturdays for
the next three months and thereafter as and
when directed by the said Officer.

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

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

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

(e) The petitioner shall not go anywhere near to the
residence of the lady defacto complainant until
conclusion of the trial.

(f) The petitioner shall not enter into or reside
within the territorial limits of the Police Station,
where the lady defacto complainant is residing,
except for the limited purpose of reporting before
the investigating officer in relation to this case
or any other case or for attending any court in
relation to this case or other cases or for
contacting the lawyer concerned or for taking
part in the mediation process.

(g) The investigating officer will depute a woman
B.A.No. 6484/19 – : 6 :-

Police constable to the residence of the lady
defacto complainant at least once in a week to
ascertain whether she or her family members
have been threatened or intimidated by the
petitioner or men under him and if anything
adverse is brought to the notice of the IO, then he
shall take immediate steps to move application
before the competent court concerned for
cancellation of the bail, upon which the said
court will decide the matter on merits after
giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to
the accused, the prosecution as well as the lady
defacto complainant.

(h) The petitioner will immediately surrender his
passport before the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s
Court, Thiruvananthapuram, who is dealing
with the instant crime within one week from
today.

(i) The petitioner will file an affidavit before the said
court undertaking that he will not leave the
country without the prior permission of the said
court.

5. In case of violation of 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 the law.

6. It is now submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that matrimonial litigative proceedings between the parties

are pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, as

O.P.No. 909/2019 and that the petitioner is willing to partake in the

mediation process that may be ordered at the behest of the Family

Court or any other competent court. Accordingly, it is ordered that
B.A.No. 6484/19 – : 7 :-

the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, who is dealing with O.P.No.

909/2019 will ensure that notices are issued to the petitioner herein

as well as the lady defacto complainant to appear before the said

court on a date and time to be fixed by that court and thereafter the

parties may be referred to the nearest mediation centre and attempt

may be made for a comprehensive mediation of all the proceedings

pending between the parties. The Registry will forward a copy of this

order to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, who is dealing with

O.P.No. 909/2019.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail

Application stands disposed of.

Sd/-

sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

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