Allowed

Siju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2018Bail Appl./4007/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused in a dowry harassment case under Section 498 A IPC, subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation, cooperation with investigation, and the obligation not to induce witnesses or commit similar offences.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail was granted on conditions including appearance for interrogation, cooperation with investigation, and strictly negative conditions against influencing witnesses and committing further

Siju Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 14TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4007 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 1903/2017 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

SIJU,AGED 35 YEARS, ATTASSERIL HOUSE, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SRI.JUSTINE JACOB SRI.M.S.DILEEP SMT.RESMI THOMAS SRI.P.A.VIBIN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

*ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED

¶13

*ADDL.R2: NISHA MOL.P.S., AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.SIVAN, PUTHIYEDATHU HOUSE,RAYAMANGALAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 4/7/2017 IN CRL.MA.NO.7397/2017.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶19

¶20

B.A. No.4007 of 2017

¶21

- - - - Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2018

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

1.This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶24

2.The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.1903 of 2017 of the Muvattupuzha Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 323 and 498 A of the IPC.

¶25

3.The de-facto complainant is the wife of the petitioner herein. The marriage between the parties took place on 12.02.2012 and they are blessed with a child. In course of their relationship, disputes cropped up and they fell apart. Alleging cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry, a complaint was filed, based on which the aforesaid crime was registered.

¶26

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is innocent. According to the learned counsel, the marriage still subsists and all efforts are being made to reconcile the disputes and to reunite. The counsel prays that custodial

¶27

B.A. No.4007 of 2017

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

interrogation be avoided at all costs and prays for grant of prearrest bail.

¶30

5.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. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the additional 2^nd respondent.

¶31

6.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and relationship between the parties, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶32

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

¶33

i). The petitioner shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/(Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶34

ii)The 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 or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶35

iii)The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make

¶36

B.A. No.4007 of 2017

¶37

: 3 :

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶42

jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the

¶43

application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶44

sm/

¶45

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. JUDGE

Siju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siju 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

Lalu Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Nishad K.H Vs State of Kerala

P v Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Johny Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Samraj Vs State of Kerala