Allowed

Rejulal.K.v, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jun 2023Bail Appl./2244/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to the first accused petitioner, alleged of abetting the attempted abduction of his minor son by co-workers. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary by noting the child was his son and co-accused were already on bail, subjecting him to bond and strict conditions. Additional subject matter includes potential fraud and forgery.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; accused to be released on bail upon executing a bond for Rs. 20,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum.

Rejulal.K.v, Vs the State of Kerala — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶3

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
TUESDAY,THE6THDAYOFJUNE2023/16THJYAISHTA,1945

¶4

BAILAPPL.NO.2244OF2023
CRIMENO.146/2023OFMUSEUMPOLICESTATION,TRIVANDRUM

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶6

REJULAL.K.V,
AGED37YEARS
S/ODAMODARAN.V.V,'PRASADAM',EDACHERI,
PALLIKUNNU.P.O,PUZHATHIKANNUR,PIN-670004

¶7

BYADVS.
ABDULRAOOFPALLIPATH
K.R.AVINASH(KUNNATH)
PRAJITRATNAKARAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶9

THESTATEOFKERALA,
REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR,
HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682031

¶10

SRITRRENJITH,SRPUBLICPROSECUTOR

¶11

THISBAILAPPLICATIONHAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
06.06.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

B.A 2244 OF 2023

ORDER

The applicant herein is the 1st accused in Crime No.146/2023 of the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. In the aforesaid case, he is accused of having committed offense punishable under Section 109, 363, 511 of 63 and Section 34 IPC.

¶16

The de facto complainant is the estranged wife of the applicant herein. The allegation is that with intent to abduct the minor son of the applicant herein, the accused Nos.2 and 3, who are co-workers of the applicant, went to the Madonna Montessori Public School on 6.2.2020 and attempted to abduct the child and to take him away. According to the de facto complainant, it was at the instance of the petitioner herein that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had acted.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is working as a Manager in the Bank of India, Kasaragod branch. He refers to Annexure-1 order and asserts that the Family Court, Kannur has granted a visitation order entitling the petitioner to have custody of his minor son. He would point out that when the order was not complied with, the

¶18

B.A 2244 OF 2023

¶19

¶20

applicant has to approach the Family Court for directions. The learned counsel would further point out that as many as 16 cases have been filed against the applicant, and this is yet another case filed by the de facto complainant solely to harass the applicant herein. The learned counsel submits that the minor child is the son of the applicant herein, and it cannot be believed that the applicant would try to harm or initiate any steps to kidnap his own child.

¶21

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the investigation has only commenced and any orders to be passed in this application may interfere with the investigation.

¶22

I have considered the submissions advanced. I find that the applicant is the father of the child who was allegedly attempted to be abducted. It appears that the allegation of the prosecution is that accused Nos.2 and 3 are co-workers of the applicant herein. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the accused Nos.2 and 3 have been enlarged on bail. Having considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner, the rift between the husband and wife, and also the fact that the child attempted to be abducted is the son of the applicant, I am of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶23

B.A 2244 OF 2023

¶24

¶25

Resultantly, this application will stand allowed. In the event of the arrest of the applicant in Crime No.146/2023 of the Museum Police Station,

¶26

Thiruvananthapuram, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two solvent sureties

¶27

each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶28

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶29

ii) He 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.

¶30

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.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶33

IAP

Rejulal.K.v, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rejulal.K.v, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunitha.a Vs Krishnan Moosad

Dincy Davis, Vs A.P.M. Mohammed Hanish I.A.S

Lisa P Titus @ Lissy Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rasheed Paramban Vs the State of Kerala

Harilal P.L. Vs State of Kerala

M.Prasad Vs State of Kerala