Allowed

Sijo Mathai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Sept 2014Bail Appl./6607/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an application for anticipatory bail filed by four accused persons apprehending arrest in a dowry harassment case under Section 498-A IPC. The court imposes stringent conditions including reporting to the police, surrendering passports, and non-interference with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; accused to be released on bail upon executing a bond of 35,000 with two sureties and complying with specific reporting and passport conditions.

Sijo Mathai Vs 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 V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/25TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6607 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO. 224/2014 OF KANJIKUZHY POLICE STATION , IDUKKI.

¶7

APPLICANTS/ACCUSED NOS:

¶8

1. SIJO MATHAI, S/O.MATHAI K.V., AGED 34 YEARS, KADALIKKATTIL HOUSE, MUNDAMTHURUTHUPARA, MUDAKUZHA P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 546.

¶9

2. MATHAI K.V., S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 58 YEARS, KADALIKKATTIL HOUSE, MUNDAMTHURUTHUPARA, MUDAKUZHA P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 546.

¶10

3. CHINNAMMA MATHAI, W/O.MATHAI K.V., AGED 55 YEARS, KADALIKKATTIL HOUSE, MUNDAMTHURUTHUPARA, MUDAKUZHA P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 546.

¶11

4. JOSEPH K.V., S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 53 YEARS, KADALIKKATTIL HOUSE, NELLIKUZHY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 691.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SRI.MATHEW JACOB (KUNNATHU)

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIKUZHY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

msv/

¶18

V.K.MOHANAN, J

¶19

===========================

¶20

B.A No.6607 of 2014

¶21

============================

¶22

Dated this the 16^th day of September, 2014

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This is an application filed by the petitioners, who are accused in Crime No.224/2014 of Kanjikuzhy Police Station, for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as they are apprehending arrest in the above crime.

¶25

The Prosecution allegation is that the marriage between the first accused, who is the first petitioner herein and the de facto complainant was solemnized on 02.07.2013 and thereafter while the de facto complainant was residing in her matrimonial home, she was subjected to harassment demanding more dowry and thus, according to the prosecution, the accused, four in numbers, have committed the offence punishable under Section 498(A) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

B.A No.6607 of 2014

¶28

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire allegation against the petitioners are false and the petitioners are implicated in the above crime connected with some matrimonial disputes.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned Public prosecutor submitted that

¶31

there is no specific allegation against the petitioners and the allegations are general in nature.

¶32

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I am of the view that this petition can be allowed however, subject to stringent conditions.

¶33

In the result, this petition is allowed and, accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners in Crime No.224/2014 of Kanjikkuzhy Police Station, they shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the above crime and on the following further conditions:

¶34

B.A No.6607 of 2014

¶35

¶36

i) First petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in the above crime once in a fortnight on Sunday between 10 a.m and 11 a.m.

¶37

ii) Petitioners 2 to 4 shall report before the Investigating Officer in the above crime as and when required.

¶38

iii) First petitioner is directed to surrender his passport, if any, before the Investigating Officer, at the time of executing the bail bond and if he is not a passport holder, file an affidavit to that effect and the Investigating Officer is directed to produce the passport, if he is having the same, or the affidavit as afore mentioned, as the case may be, before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner is free to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for the release of the passport as and when required and in case an application is filed in this regard, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the same on merit and pass appropriate orders, guided by the decision rendered by this Court in Ashok Kumar v State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 712).

¶39

iv) Petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence and try to influence any witnesses.

¶40

B.A No.6607 of 2014

¶41

¶42

v) Petitioners shall not interfere with the investigation.

¶43

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶44

vdv

Sijo Mathai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sijo Mathai v. 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

Clabin @ Vipin Vs State of Kerala

Beefathima Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Anoop Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Zakariya P. @ Jakki Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Firos Vs Sub Inspector of Police