Allowed

Raveendran Achari. T.R v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2017Bail Appl./5650/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala was seized of a bail application moving for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving allegations under Section 498A IPC. The court considered the arguments of the petitioners and the de facto complainant and granted bail on specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed on conditions including appearance before investigation officer, bond execution, and specific behavioral covenants.

Raveendran Achari. T.R Vs the State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/19TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5650 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1851/2017 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4:

¶8

1. RAVEENDRAN ACHARI. T.R.,

¶9

S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN ACHARI, AGED 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEKKEDATHU, RATHEESH BHAVAN, KAVUBHAGOM, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

2. SUDHA DEVI. M.S.,

¶11

W/O. RAMAKRISHNAN ACHARI, AGED 59 YEARS,

¶12

RESIDING AT THEKKEDATHU, RATHEESH BHAVAN, KAVUBHAGOM, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶13

3. SMITHA SUNIL,

¶14

W/O. SUNILKUMAR. P.C., AGED 38 YEARS,

¶15

RESIDING AT SUNIL NIVAS, MUTHOOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶16

4. SOORYA RAVEENDRAN,

¶17

D/O. RAVEENDRAN ACHARI, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEKKEDATHU, RATHEESH BHAVAN, KAVUBHAGOM, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶18

BY ADVS.SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, SRI.V.S.THOSHIN.

¶19

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶20

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶21

Bail Appl..No. 5650 of 2017

¶22

***** ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED

¶23

2. DEEPA. S., D/O. SREEDEVI. V.N., AGED 26 YEARS, DEEPA SADANAM, TC-53/527, THOOKKUVILA, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶24

ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23/08/2017 IN CRL.MA. NO.9404/2017 IN BA.5650/2017.

¶25

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SREEJA V. ADDL. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR.

¶26

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

rs.

¶28

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶29

B.A.No.5650 of 2017

¶30

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2017

¶31

ORDER

¶32

1.This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of

¶33

Criminal Procedure.

¶34

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 1851 of 2017 of Thiruvalla Police Station registered alleging offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The daughter-in-law of the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners is the defacto complainant . The petitioners 3 and 4 are the daughters of the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners. The son of the 1^st petitioner is working abroad.

¶35

3.A complaint was filed by the de facto complainant alleging offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC, based on which the aforesaid crime was registered .

¶36

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are innocent. He submits that the allegations are all

¶37

B.A.No. 5650 of 2017 2

¶38

centered against the 1^st petitioner and the family members have been roped in to force the principal accused to accede to the demands of the wife. It is contended that the marriage still subsists and all efforts are being made to reconcile the disputes and to reunite. The counsel prays that custodial interrogation be avoided at all costs and prays for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶39

5.The de facto complainant was impleaded and she has entered appearance through counsel. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners have played an active role and their assertion of innocence is clearly without basis.

¶40

6.The learned Public Prosecutor does not seriously oppose the said prayer. Referring to the case diary and the instructions received by him, it is asserted that the de facto complainant has not suffered any physical injury.

¶41

7.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the

¶42

B.A.No. 5650 of 2017 3

¶43

allegations and relationship between the parties, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶44

8.This petition will stand allowed on the following conditions:-

¶45

i). The petitioners shall appear before the investigation 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.

¶46

ii)The 1^st petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., for one month. The rest of the petitioners shall appear as and when directed.

¶47

iii)The petitioners 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.

¶48

iv)The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶49

B.A.No. 5650 of 2017 4

¶50

v) If they surrender before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶51

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.

¶52

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶53

//True Copy\

¶54

P.A to Judge

¶55

IAP

Raveendran Achari. T.R v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendran Achari. T.R 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreelesh Vs State of Kerala

Shinoj Kumar K.K Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Ajesh v.Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Shaludeen Vs the State of Kerala