Allowed

Ratheesh M.R v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Sept 2019Bail Appl./5093/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered a bail application regarding abetment to suicide. Relying on precedents, the Court held that spur-of-the-moment domestic abuse may not constitute abetment if mens rea is absent. Bail was granted subject to surrender for interrogation and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to surrender by 15.10.2019 for interrogation; to cooperate fully; bail to be granted if arrested, subject to bond and sureties, on compliance with conditions regarding witness influ

Ratheesh M.R Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 3RD ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5093 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1511/2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM

¶7

CRIME NO.726/2018 OF Valiyamala Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

RATHEESH M.R, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.MANIYAN, KIZHAKKUMKARA VEEDU, MAI.AMOODU, NALLIKUZHI, PUTHUKULANGARA.P.O, UZHAMALAKKAL,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031,(CRIME NO.726/2018 OF VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT).

¶13

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695547, (CRIME NO.726/2018 OF VALIYAMALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT).

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

::2::

¶18

Bail Appl..No.5093 OF 2019

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J .

¶20

B.A.No.5093 Of 2019

¶21

Dated this the 25^th day of September, 2019.

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The subject crime in this case is Crime No.726/2018 of Valiyamala Police Station, which was initially registered for offence under Sec.174 of the Cr.P.C, on account of the unnatural death/suicide of the petitioner's wife. Later, the Police after investigation has altered the offence as per Sec.306 of the I.P.C and the petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused.

¶24

The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner has married the victim and that in her dying-in declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate, she has stated that on the day in question, the spouses had quarrelled and that the petitioner had told her “ you go and die ” and she got highly frustrated with that and she had immediately poured kerosene over her body and ablaze herself and she was hospitalised and later she succumbed to burn injuries and that the petitioner is responsible for her death. It is on this basis, the petitioner has been implicated for the offence of abetment to commit suicide as per Sec.306 I.P.C.

¶25

::3::

¶26

Bail Appl..No.5093 OF 2019

¶27

Sri.K.K.Dheerendrakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations will not constitute the legal basis for satisfying the necessary ingredients of abetment to commit suicide under Sec.306 of the I.P.C and offence as per Sec.107 of the I.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that it has been held by the Apex Court and various High Courts including this Court that in the course of domestic quarrel between the spouses if a husband utters for a spur of the moment to the wife “ you go and die ” cannot be the legal basis to say that the husband has the mens rea to instigate for the commission of suicide by the deceased wife so as to attract the ingredients of offence under Sec.306 of the I.P.C The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on various decisions as in Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P ., reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, Cyriac v S.I. of Police , reported in 2005 (3) KLT 673, S.S.Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & anr. , reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190, para 28, K.Ramakrishnappa v. State of Karnataka , reported in 2006 KHC 2915, Arjunan M v. State, rep. By Inspector of Police , reported in AIR 2019 SC 43, Altafbhai (Abdus) Sattarbhai

¶28

::4::

¶29

Bail Appl..No.5093 OF 2019

¶30

Deraiya & anr. v. State of Gujarat , reported in 2015 KHC 3585 (Kar), Harikrishnan & anr. v. State of Kerala & anr ., reported in 2019 (3) KHC 437 and Swamy Prahladdas v. State of M.P. & anr, reported in (1995) Supp. (3) SCC 438, to make it clear the vital point on the abovesaid aspect.

¶31

The learned Prosecutor has seriously opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and has also submitted that the petitioner will have to co-operate with the interrogation process.

¶32

After hearing both sides and testing the legal principles in the light of the judicial precedents in relation to offence under Sec.306 of the I.P.C, this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be really warranted or necessary for the smooth and effective conduct of the investigation. Accordingly, the following orders are passed:

¶33

(i) The petitioner shall personally surrender before the Investigating Officer in relation to Crime No.726/2018 of Valiyamala Police Station at 9:00 a.m. on any day on or before 15.10.2019 to subject himself for interrogation purposes.

¶34

(ii) The petitioner will fully co-operate with the interrogation process.

¶35

(iii) After completing the above interrogation process, in case the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioner, then he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶36

::5::

¶37

Bail Appl..No.5093 OF 2019

¶38

Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail will be subject to following conditions:-

¶39

(a) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the said Officer.

¶40

(b) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶41

(c) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

¶42

(d) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

¶43

(f) In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if required, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶44

With these observations and directions, the above Bail

¶45

Application will stand disposed of.

¶46

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶47

bkn/-

Ratheesh M.R v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratheesh M.R 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

Unnichandran, Vs K.Mini

Rajendran Vs Dr.v.Venu

Vinod.v. Vs the State of Kerala

John Jose Vs State of Kerala

Nishad v.Muhammed Vs the State of Kerala

Karayi Pavithran Vs State of Kerala