Allowed

Thulaseedharan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Aug 2020Bail Appl./570/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bail application allowed bail for the first accused in an IPC 306 and 498A case involving marital suicide. The court held that custodial interrogation is not necessary and granted bail subject to conditions preventing abduction of witnesses and ensuring cooperation with police.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for the first petitioner on his personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each of Rs.50,000.

Thulaseedharan, Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

BA.No.570/2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶7

Bail Appl..No.570 OF 2020

¶8

(CRIME NO.1631/2019 OF EROOR POLICE STATION, PUNALUR)

¶9

PETITIONERS:

¶10

1 THULASEEDHARAN,

¶11

AGED 53 YEARS

¶12

S/O.LATE DAMODHARAN, KOCHUVILA VEEDU, (GEETHU BHAVAN), KARIMBINKONAM, EROOR, ANCHAL VIA., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 312.

¶13

2 GEETHU, AGED 31 YEARS

¶14

D/O.THULASEEDHARAN, KOCHUVILA VEEDU (GEETHU BHAVAN), KARIMBINKONAM, EROOR, ANCHAL VIA., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 312.

¶15

3 LAIJU, AGED 39 YEARS

¶16

S/O.RAJENDRAN, LATHA BHAVAN, KARIMBINKONAM, EROOR, ANCHAL VIA., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 312.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

¶18

RESPONDENTS:

¶19

1 STATE OF KERALA,

¶20

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 680 031.

¶21

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EROOR POLICE STATION, EROOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 312.

¶22

SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP

¶23

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA.No.570/2020

O R D E R

Dated this the 6th day of August 2020

¶28

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶29

Petitioners filed this bail application based on an apprehension that they will be arrested in connection with the suicide of Vasantha on 31.12.2019, who is the wife of the 1^st petitioner. Now the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners 2 and 3 are not the accused and the 1^st petitioner is an accused in Crime No.1631/2019 of Eroor Police Station, Punalur. Eventhough the above case was originally registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C, subsequently the offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC is added.

¶30

The prosecution case is that the deceased Vasantha was the 2^nd wife of the 1^st petitioner. The marriage between the 1^st petitioner and the Vasantha was on 17.10.2019. Within three months after the marriage Vasantha committed suicide. According to the prosecution, the petitioners committed the offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶32

BA.No.570/2020

¶33

¶34

learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the deceased Vasantha was having some financial liability to a Cooperative Bank. Because of that she committed suicide. There is no matrimonial dispute between the 1^st petitioner and the deceased Vasantha. According to the counsel, the offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC is not made out in this case.

¶36

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the offence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC are added based on the mobile phone records of the deceased. According to the Public Prosecutor, the voice message in the Whatsapp used by the deceased was recovered. There is some allegation against the 1^st petitioner in the voice message. Therefore, the offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC is made out.

¶37

I requested the Public Prosecutor to reveal the contents of the voice message in the Whatsapp of the deceased. The Public Prosecutor read out the relevant portion of the voice message. Whether an offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC is made out based on such a statement is a matter to be investigated by the police. For that purpose, custodial interrogation of the 1^st petitioner may not be necessary. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think, the bail application of

¶38

BA.No.570/2020

¶39

¶40

the 1^st petitioner can be allowed.

¶41

Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶42

Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench of this Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.

¶43

Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement

¶44

(2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

¶45

Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

¶46

The 1^st petitioner shall appear before

¶47

BA.No.570/2020

¶48

¶49

the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

¶50

After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the 1^st petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.

¶51

The 1^st petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶52

The 1^st Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

¶53

The 1^st petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶54

The 1^st petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic.

¶55

BA.No.570/2020

¶56

¶57

If any of the above conditions are violated by the 1^st petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.

¶58

Recording the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners are not the accused in this case, their application is closed.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

Thulaseedharan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thulaseedharan, 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

Tincy Joseph, Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Vishnudas Vs State of Kerala

Dhanyaprakash Vs State of Kerala

Rinto Anto, Vs State of Kerala

Vishnuprasad Vs State of Kerala

Azeem Vs State of Kerala