Allowed

Santhamma Rajan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Dec 2021Bail Appl./5258/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail application of 2nd accused charged with dowry harassment and abetting suicide. Directed police supervision by DGP to ensure timely investigation and granted anticipatory bail subject to bond and appearance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to Rs.50,000 bond, Saturday appearances, non-interference with investigation, and no other crimes.

Santhamma Rajan Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 5258 OF 2021

¶6

Crime No.646/2021 of Vattapara Police Station

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

SANTHAMMA RAJAN AGED 63 YEARS, W/O.LATE RAJAN P.DEV, RAJAKALA HOUSE, GREEN ROAD, KARUKUTTY, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 576.

¶9

BY ADVS. B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.) SUJESH MENON V.B. R.ANIL M.SUNILKUMAR T.ANIL KUMAR MAHESH BHANU S. S.LAKSHMI SANKAR RESSIL LONAN JAI GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶12

2 ADDL.R2 VISHNU AGED 29 YEARS, OCC.LABOUR, S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN, VISHNU BHAVAN KARIKKAKAM, THEKKEDA VILLAGE, VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695028. IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 13.08.2021 IN CRL.MA 2/2021.

¶13

BY ADV BIJU ANTONY ALOOR

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SMT. SEETHA .S. (SR.PP)

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A. No.5258/2021

-2-

O R D E R

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.646/2021 of Vattapara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District alleging commission of offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that she together with the other accused in the case had physically and mentally harassed the deceased, Priyanka with a demand for dowry, as a result of which the said Priyanka committed suicide on 12-05-2021.

¶22

Sri. B. Raman Pillai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are totally false. It is submitted that the 1^st accused in the case has already been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court and the custody of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of investigation into the case. It is submitted that the so called evidences of assault by the petitioner and the 1^st accused are completely fabricated and bears no semblance to the actual truth of the matter. It is submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter and at any rate custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for a proper investigation into the matter.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions vehementally opposes the grant of anticipatory bail. He submits that there are clear allegations against the petitioner/2^nd accused and certain materials have also

¶24

B.A. No.5258/2021 -3-

¶25

been handed over to the investigating officer by the family of the deceased Priyanka which would suggest that she was brutally manhandled and abused by the 1^st and 2^nd accused. It is submitted that the truth of the matter can be ascertained only after thorough investigation and that the custody of the petitioner is absolutely necessary for the purpose of investigation.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant would also submit that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the fact the 1^st accused was granted bail by the Sessions Court is not a ground to consider the anticipatory bail in so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is submitted that this is a case where an innocent girl had committed suicide owing to brutal assault at the hands of the accused 1 & 2. It is submitted that the petitioner deserves no mercy and the fact that she is a woman aged 53 is no reason to consider the grant anticipatory bail to her. It is submitted that the accused in the case are highly influential persons and that at their instance the investigation of the case is at a stand still. It is suggested that the monitoring of investigation into the case must be entrusted to a superior officer to ensure that a proper investigation is carried out. It is suggested that the supervision of the investigation may be entrusted to Mrs. Harshitha Attaluri, I.P.S., Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Zone, having her office at Nandavanam, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶27

B.A. No.5258/2021

¶28

-4-

¶29

Taking into account the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant that the investigation into Crime No.646/2021 of Vattapara Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District is at a standstill on account of the influence of the accused in this case, I direct that the State Police Chief to issue necessary orders entrusting the supervision of the investigation into Crime No.646/2021 of Vattapara Police Station to Mrs. Harshitha Attaluri, I.P.S., Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Zone, having her office at Nandavanam, Thiruvananthapuram. The said officer shall closely monitor the investigation into Crime No.646/2021 of Vattapara Police Station and ensure that the investigation is completed in a time bound manner and without any further delay. The State Police Chief shall pass orders in this regard within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶30

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the submissions of the respective counsel and especially considering the fact that 1^st accused had already been granted bail, I am of the view the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

¶31

In the result, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.646/2021 of Vattapara Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

¶32

B.A. No.5258/2021

¶33

-5-

¶34

(i) Petitioner shall execute 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 jurisdictional Court;

¶35

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer in Crime No.646/2021 of Vattapara Police Station on every Saturday at 11 a.m till 31-01-2022 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so;

¶36

(iii) Petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.646/2021 of Vattapara Police Station; (iv) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶37

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.646/2021 of Vattapara Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶38

Registry shall communicate a copy of this order to the State Police Chief.

¶39

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶40

AMG

Santhamma Rajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhamma Rajan 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

Vincent Decruz Vs State of Kerala

Shyne Raj Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Shareefa Ullath Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Saseendran Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Dheeraj Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev N.K. Vs State of Kerala