Allowed

Vijith v. Nair, v State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Feb 2024Bail Appl./260/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application by three accused in a dowry-demand case registered after they withdrew from a marriage engagement. The court found custodial interrogation unnecessary and allowed the bail on conditions including surrender for interrogation and bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to accused nos.1 to 3: surrender by 01.03.2024; release on arrest on Rs.50,000 bond each with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions.

Vijith v Nair, Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 2ND PHALGUNA,

¶5

1945

¶6

BAIL APPL. NO. 260 OF 2024

¶7

CRIME NO.1806/2023 OF Vilappilssala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMC 3332/2023 OF DISTRICT

¶9

COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶10

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶11

1 VIJITH V NAIR,

¶12

AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.S.VENUGOPALAN NAIR, MAKAM CHITHRA NAGAR, THAZHAVILA LANE, PANGODE, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695006

¶13

2 SHANTHI, AGED 52 YEARS,W/O.VENUGOPALAN NAIR, MAKAM CHITHRA NAGAR, THAZHAVILA LANE, PANGODE, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695006

¶14

3 VENUGOPALAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, MAKAM CHITHRA NAGAR, THAZHAVILA LANE, PANGODE THIRUMALA VILLAGE,THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695006

¶15

BY ADVS.

¶16

SWAPNA VIJAYAN
K.V.ANIL KUMAR
RADHIKA S.ANIL

¶17

RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶18

STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶19

SR.PP-SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

BA No.260/2024

..2..

SOPHY THOMAS, J

========================= Bail.Appl.No.260 of 2024

¶25

========================== Dated this the 21^ST day of February, 2024

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC filed by accused nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1806/2023 of Vilappilssala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered under Sections 417 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶28

The prosecution allegation is that, the petitioners are the de-facto complainant’s fiance and his parents. After conducting the engagement ceremony of her marriage with the 1^st accused on 26.10.2023, they demanded Rs.5 Lakhs and 20 sovereigns of gold as dowry.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, engagement ceremony of the marriage between the 1^st accused and the de-facto complainant was conducted on

¶32

BA No.260/2024

¶33

..3..

¶34

26.10.2023. During that ceremony the petitioners realized that the de-facto complainant was having some behavioural problems and so they wanted to withdraw from that marriage. On 27.11.2023, the 1^st petitioner sent a lawyer notice to the de-facto complainant claiming compensation. Thereafter, a false complaint was lodged against the petitioners, only to wreak vengeance, as they withdrew from that marriage proposal.

¶35

The dispute is revolving around a marriage proposal between the 1^st accused and the de-facto complainant. Their engagement was conducted on 26.10.2023. According to the petitioners, the de-facto complainant was showing some behavioural disorders and so they wanted to withdraw from that marriage. The father of the de-facto complainant threatened the petitioners with death, for withdrawing from that marriage.

¶36

Considering the factual circumstances, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not needed for the purpose of investigation. So this Court is inclined to allow this application on the following terms:

¶37

i. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 01.03.2024 and subject

¶38

BA No.260/2024

¶39

..4..

¶40

themselves for interrogation.

¶41

ii. In the event of arrest, petitioners shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by each of them with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

¶42

iii. Thereafter, the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when directed.

¶43

iv. The petitioners shall not try to contact the victim or her family members and shall not influence or intimidate them, either directly or indirectly.

¶44

v. The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the investigation.

¶45

vi. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while

¶46

on bail.

¶47

vii. In case of violation of any of these conditions, the trial court is empowered to cancel their bail, in accordance with law.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE

¶50

ACR

Vijith v. Nair, v State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijith v. Nair, 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

Sundaran Achari, Vs State of Kerala

Nandu Santhosh @ Chichu Vs State of Kerala

Synaba Vs State of Kerala

Sidique, Vs State of Kerala

Sidique, Vs State of Kerala

Sidique, Vs State of Kerala