Allowed

Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Aug 2016Bail Appl./5972/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a pre-arrest bail application in a 498-A IPC case. The court found the matrimony strained but genuineness of cruelty is for trial. Bail granted subject to reporting to police, not leaving jurisdiction, and avoiding contact with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; petitioners released on bail with two solvent sureties for Rs.40,000/- each, subject to reporting, non-leave of jurisdiction, and no witness contact.

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5972 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 659/2016 OF ARUVIKKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. VIJAYAKUMAR AGED:51 YEARS, S/O PONNUMANI NADAR, ALLAKKATTU VIA VEEDU, NADAKKILAVU PANCHAYAT, MEDUKUMMAL VILLAGE, KANNIYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU

¶9

2. RADHA AGED:48 YEARS, W/O.C. RAVEENDRAN, PARAYANVILA VEEDU, PARASSALA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶10

3. RAVEENDRAN AGED:53 YEARS, S/O CHELLAPPAN NADAR, PARAYANVILLA PUTHEN VEEDU, MURIYAN KARA, NEDUVANVILA, PARASSALA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.SAIJO HASSAN

¶12

SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR SRI.U.M.HASSAN SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶14

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

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R. REMA

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P. UBAID, J

B.A.No.5972 of 2016

Dated this the 23^rd day of August, 2016

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners herein seek pre-arrest bail under Section

¶23

438 Cr.P.C., on the apprehension of arrest by the police in connection with Crime No.659/2016 of the Aruvilkara Police Station, registered under Section 498-A IPC read with 34 IPC.

¶24

The defacto complainant in this crime is the legally wedded wife of the 1^st petitioner. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the brother-in-law and the sister-in-law respectively, of the defacto complainant. Her complaint is that she had been mentally and physically iltreated by her husband and the inlaws by demanding more dowry and ornaments, and even otherwise. On a perusal of the materials including the complaint made by the lady, I find that her matrimony with the 1st petitioner stands, to an extent, strained. There is reason to believe that the present complaint is the result of the said strained matrimony. The genuineness of the allegations of cruelty is a matter for decision on trial. Interrogation of the petitioner in custody is not felt necessary. Without such interrogation, the required materials can be collected by the

¶25

¶26

B.A.Nos.5972 of 2016

¶27

police. It will suffice that the petitioners are directed to report before the investigating officer for necessary interrogation, if felt necessary.

¶28

In the result, this application is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, as the case may be. Bail is granted on condition that,

¶29

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer for necessary interrogation, as and when required by him, and the 1st petitioner shall so report between 10 am and 11 am on all Wednesdays for a period of two months.

¶30

b) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdictional limits of Aruvikara Police Station, for a period two months.

¶31

c) The petitioners shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or they shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise, except for the purpose of settlement of the dispute, in case anybody intervened for such a course.

Sd/-

P.UBAID, JUDGE

// True Copy //

P.A. to Judge

Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Shivaraman Nair @ K.S.Nair Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumar @ Unni Vs State of Kerala

Sulaiman Vs State of Kerala

Joy P George Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Dasan @ Yesudasan Vs the State of Kerala