Allowed

Suresh Babu v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jun 2014Bail Appl./3844/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, Judgment Bench Hon'ble K. Abraham Mathew J., allowed Bail Appl. No. 3844 of 2014 filed by accused 1 and 2 in a crime involving dowry cruelty and abetment to suicide. The court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including appearance before the investigating officer and execution of bond, doubting the sufficiency of the sole death-threat allegation as per Madan

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two solvent sureties, subject to appearance conditions and restrictions on tampering/witness intimidation.

Suresh Babu Vs the State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/26TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3844 of 2014 ---------------------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO. 135/2014 OF MANKADA POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 :

¶8

1. SURESH BABU.T., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAJAGOPAL, THRIKKAPPATTA HOUSE, THIRUVALI P.O.

¶9

2. SAROJINI P.K., AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.LATE RAJAGOPAL,

¶10

THRIKKEPATTA HOUSE, THIRUVALI P.O.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SMT.O.V.BINDU SRI.J.VIMAL

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.135/2014 OF MANKADA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶18

B.A. NO.3844 OF 2014

¶19

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2014

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.135/2014 of

¶23

Mankada Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 498 and 306 r/w Section 34 IPC.

¶24

The 1^st petitioner married the daughter of the de facto complainant. The 2^nd petitioner is the 1^st petitioner's mother. The 1^st petitioner's wife committed suicide on 27.4.2014 at her parents' residence. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioners had subjected her to cruelty both physical and mental demanding more dowry and for other reasons. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations are false. It is evident from the fact that within a reasonable time from the suicide of the victim no such allegation was raised.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The marriage of the 1^st petitioner and the victim was solemnized about 2 ½ years ago. They have a child aged 1½ years. The was doing a PG course. It is seen from the statements of the father of the victim, which was recorded ten days after the commission of the suicide by

¶27

the victim that there were domestic problems in the family of the 1^st petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioners demanded more dowry from the

¶28

B.A. NO.3844 OF 2014 2

¶29

victim's parents. The serious allegation against the petitioners is that in the course of a quarrel they asked the victim to go and die. Except this allegation, no other serious allegation has been raised against the petitioners. In view of the decision in Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and Another (2010(8) SC 628) it is doubtful whether this statement alone will be sufficient to attract the offence of Section 306 IPC. Having regard to facts disclosed in the statements recorded by the police Section 161 Cr.P.C, I am of the opinion that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners will not adversely affect the investigation.

¶30

In the result, this Bail application is allowed with the following conditions:

¶31

The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

¶32

The 1^st petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.30 a.m and 11.30 a.m on every 1^st and 3^rd Saturdays for three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶33

The 2^nd petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.30 a.m and 11.30 a.m on the last Saturday of this month and the 2^nd Saturday of the next month.

¶34

1. They shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.

¶35

B.A. NO.3844 OF 2014 3

¶36

The petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence

¶37

the witnesses.

¶38

This order is not applicable if the petitioners choose to surrender before the Magistrate concerned and in such case the learned Magistrate may take appropriate action in accordance with the law.

¶39

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶40

Suresh Babu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Babu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Noushad V.B. Vs State of Kerala

Genesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Hassan Kannu Vs State of Kerala

Vimal Vs the State of Kerala

Athul.P.Raj Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Nishad Vs State of Kerala