SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vinod vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2019

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. 637 of 2019

CRIME NO. 1009/2018 OF Chathannoor Police Station, Kollam

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4:

1 VINOD, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O SURENDRAN, SNEHALAYAM, PANIYIL, ULIYANADU,
CHATHANNUR KOLLAM.

2 SOBHANA, AGED 55 YEARS,
W/O SURENDRAN, SNEHALAYAM, PANIYIL, ULIYANADU,
CHATHANNUR KOLLAM.

3 SURENDRAN, AGED 60 YEARS,
SNEHALAYAM, PANIYIL, ULIYANADU, CHATHANNUR, KOLLAM.

4 BINDHU, AGED 30 YEARS,
D/O SURENDRAN, CHATHANNUR, KOLLAM

BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS/STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHATHANNUR POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 572.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. T. R. RENJITH

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.02.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 637 of 2019

2

ORDER

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

2. The applicants herein are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime

No.1009 of 2018 registered at the Chathannur Police Station under

Sections 498A and 324 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

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

herein and applicants Nos. 2 to 4 are his near relatives. Their marriage

was solemnized on 13.05.2007 and they are blessed with two children.

The elder one is aged 9 years and the younger one is 7 years old.

According to the de facto complainant, the applicants subjected her to

cruelty and harassment demanding dowry. Due to the persistent ill

treatment, she had to leave the company of the 1 st applicant and

started living with her parents from the month of March, 2018.

Stating these allegations, a complaint was lodged, based on which

subject crime was registered.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted

that the marriage still subsists and for trivial reasons, an attempt is

being made to destroy the relationship. He points out that though the

provisions were enacted to check and curb the menace of dowry, in
Bail Appl..No. 637 of 2019

3

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.

5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone

through the materials that have been made available. The allegations

now levelled does 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 is not necessary for an effective

investigation in the instant case.

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. However, 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
Bail Appl..No. 637 of 2019

4

of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.
The applicant Nos. 2 to 4 shall appear before the
investigating officer as and when they are directed 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.

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

avs
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh