Partly allowed

Meethin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2023Bail Appl./889/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed pre-arrest bail for accused Nos. 2 to 4 in a domestic dispute involving Section 498A and IPC offences. Bail was denied to accused No. 1 due to specific allegations of sexual harassment against the victim, who is the wife of accused No. 2.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted to accused Nos. 2 to 4 on bond of Rs.1,00,000 each; prayer for bail for accused No. 1 rejected.

Meethin Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 889 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.16/2023 OF Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam CRMC 115/2023 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶8

1 MEETHIN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. URAN, PORUNNIKKAL HOUSE, PONJASSERY, NEAR HI COUNT COMPANY, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683547

¶9

2 UBAIS P.M, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. MEETHIN PORUNNIKKAL HOUSE, PONJASSERY, NEAR HI COUNT COMPANY, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683547

¶10

3 SUHARA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. MEETHIN, PORUNNIKKAL HOUSE, PONJASSERY, NEAR HI COUNT COMPANY, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683547

¶11

4 SOUDHA BEEVI, AGED 23 YEARS, W/O. AJAS ALI, PORUNNIKKAL HOUSE, PONJASSERY RESIDING AT PAINADIKUDY HOUSE, THANDAKKAD, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683547

¶12

BY ADVS.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE

¶13

M.SANTHY, C.A.ANAS, P.MUHAMMED SHIYAS, V.A.FAZAL

¶14

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031

¶16

BY SRI. V.S. SREEJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶18

08.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.889/2023

-:2:-

O R D E R

Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2023

¶23

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶24

The applicants are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No.16/2023 of Perumbavoor Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 354A1(iii), 509, 506(ii), 427 read with 34 of the IPC.

¶25

The prosecution case in short is that the defacto complainant/victim who is the wife of the 2^nd applicant/2^nd accused was subjected to cruelty at the matrimonial house by the applicant Nos. 1 to 4. There are specific allegations against the 1^st applicant regarding sexual harassment as well.

¶26

I have heard Smt. M. Santhy, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri. V.S. Sreejith, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

¶27

The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that

¶28

the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in

¶29

B.A.No.889/2023

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicants with the alleged crime; hence, they are entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicants, and if they are released on bail at this stage, it will affect the course of the investigation.

¶32

I went through the FIS as well as the 164 statement of the victim. The 2^nd applicant is the husband of the victim. The 1^st applicant is the father-in-law. The 3^rd applicant is the motherin-law. There are no specific allegations in both the FIS and 164 statement to attract the offences against the applicant Nos. 2 to 4 who are accused Nos. 2 to 4. However, there are specific allegations against the applicant No.1 to attract the offences under Sections 354, 354A1(iii), 509, 506(ii), 427 read with 34 of the IPC. The victim has specifically stated that, on several occasions, the 1^st applicant with criminal intent caught hold of her, pressed her breast and requested for sexual favour. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the 1^st applicant is not

¶33

B.A.No.889/2023

¶34

-:4:-

¶35

entitled to get anticipatory bail. However, since there is no specific allegation against the remaining applicants, they are entitled to anticipatory bail. The custodial interrogation of applicant Nos. 2 to 4 also does not appear to be necessary. Thus, pre-arrest bail can be granted to the applicant Nos. 2 to 4.

¶36

In the result, the application is allowed in part on the following conditions:-

¶37

(i) The applicant Nos. 2 to 4 shall be released on bail in

¶38

the event of their arrest on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.

¶39

(ii) The applicant Nos. 2 to 4 shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting themselves to the deemed police custody for discovery, if any, as and when demanded.

¶40

(iii) The applicant Nos. 2 to 4 shall appear before the

¶41

investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until further orders. They shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

¶42

B.A.No.889/2023

¶43

-:5:-

¶44

(iv) The applicant Nos. 2 to 4 shall not commit any offence

¶45

of a like nature while on bail.

¶46

(v) The applicant Nos. 2 to 4 shall not attempt to contact

¶47

any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

¶48

(vi) The applicant Nos. 2 to 4 shall not leave the State of

¶49

Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

¶50

(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of bail

¶51

conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.

¶52

The prayer for pre-arrest bail sought for by the 1^st applicant

¶53

is rejected.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

B.A.No.889/2023

-:6:-

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 889/2023

¶61

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶62

Annexure A1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION ISSUED TO THE MOTHER OF THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 02.06.2021 BY DR. JOBY SCARIA OF "BRAINWORKS NEUROPSYCHIATRY CENTRE", M.C. ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 7 Annexure A2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT BELOW IN CRIMINAL MC NO. 115/2023

Meethin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meethin 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

Pradeesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Reji K Vs State of Kerala

Biju, S/O.Rappai, Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Aziz, Vs State of Kerala

Usman B. M Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Hameed.U Vs State of Kerala