Allowed

Vipin M. v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC19 Feb 2016Bail Appl./917/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to accused persons in a marriage suicide case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The court held that at this early stage, it is not justifiable to permit custodial interrogation based on bare allegations of dowry harassment by in-laws.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners subject to conditions of police interrogation within ten days and execution of a bond with sureties; order modifiable if new evidence emerges.

Vipin M. Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/30TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 917 of 2016 ()

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶7

1. VIPIN M., S/O.CHANDRAN, AGED 29 YEARS, MELAYIL, GURUVAYURAPPAN COLLEGE P.O., PALAYI AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

2. RATHI, W/O.CHANDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS, MELAYIL, GURUVAYURAPPAN COLLEGE P.O., PALAYI AMSOM & DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS & STATE:

¶11

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 001.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA, (RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031).

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-02-2016, THE COURT ON 19/02/2016 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

rs.

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

B.A. No.917of 2016

¶19

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.37/2016 of Nallalam police station for offences punishable under Section 174 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Second petitioner is the mother of the first petitioner. First petitioner married one Rainu Mohan on 10/9/2012 and a child was born in the matrimonial relationship. The child had an acute ailment affecting the brain and had been under treatment in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and later in CMC Vellore. While so, on 6/1/2016, the wife Rainu Mohan along with the child was found hanging from a room in their house. They were rushed to the hospital by the neighbours and Rainu Mohan was declared dead. The child died ten days thereafter. Alleging that the petitioners had harassed Rainu in connection with demand for dowry and drove her to commit suicide, crime was registered. Petitioners apprehend arrest and detention.

¶23

B.A.No.917/2016

¶24

¶25

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Rainu Mohan was depressed due to continuous ailment of the child. It was contended that the petitioners had not harassed the victim in connection with demand for dowry and that the crime is being perused against them at the instance of the inlaws who were in the enimical terms with the petitioners.

¶26

4.Materials on record clearly show that the first petitioner had a love marriage against the wishes of her parents. It appears that her parents did not participate in the marriage. Further, even after the marriage the couple were living with the family of the first petitioner. Records also indicate that the child was under treatment since long for decease affecting the brain. Records relating to the treatment are available in the CD and is also produced as Annexure A. Child was under continuous treatment at the Christian Medical College, Velloor evidenced by Annexure C. According to the petitioners, an appointment was taken to meet the doctor on 9/01/2016 for which a train ticket for the couple was booked much in advance to travel on 8/1/2016. Two days prior to that wife committed suicide.

¶27

Version of most of the witnesses indicate that couple had

¶28

B.A.No.917/2016

¶29

¶30

cordial relationship and there are some indications that Rainu was anxious due to the ailment of the child. It appears that the in-laws of the first petitioner alone have alleged matrimonial cruelty.

¶31

Having regard to the materials on record, it is too early at this stage to come to the conclusion that there was matrimonial cruelty. In the light of the available materials, It may not be justifiable to permit the custodial interrogation of the petitioners on the basis of bare allegations raised by the in-laws. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

¶32

(i). Petitioners 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 each executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶33

(ii). They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the witnesses.

¶34

(iii). They shall appear before the Investigating officer as

¶35

B.A.No.917/2016

¶36

¶37

and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶38

It is made clear that bail is granted to the petitioners on the basis of the available materials. In the event of more clinging evidence pointing out to the complicity of the petitioners herein is unearthed, the investigating officer is free to approach the court seeking modification of this order.

¶39

Bail application is allowed with the above observation.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶42

dpk

¶43

/true copy/ PS to Judge.

¶44

B.A.No.917/2016

¶45

Vipin M. v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin M. v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Prabhukesh @ Kuttan Vs State of Kerala

Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Vs State of Kerala

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Reghunatha Pillai Vs State of Kerala