- 498a and manhandling case against 37 year old husband
- third or fourth bail appln I have noticed in the same HC bench, on the same subject
- thankfully HC grants anticipatory: "....Considering the nature of allegations and also the fact that the custodial interrogation is not necessary,..."
- HC says Materials placed before the court for perusal show that the allegations are vague and general in nature.
- what happens to these lives ?
- how many years are lost ?
- hope these men fight for male rights and family harmony ??
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/3RD ASWINA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 6728 of 2012 ()
CRIME NO.1099/2012 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
SIJU KUMAR V.K, S/O. KOCHUKUNJU, AGED 37 YEARS,
R/O. SEETHA BHAVAN, VELLOOR,
KOTTAYAM WEST.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ,PN-682 031.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN-689 101.
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
B.A. No.6728 of 2012
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2012
O R D E R
This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1099/2012 of Thiruvalla Police Station who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 506(i), 323, 498A r/w 34 of IPC. Allegation against the petitioner is that he demanding more dowry harassed and manhandled the defacto complainant. The marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 24.5.2010. The complaint was lodged only on 1.8.2012. Materials placed before the court for perusal show that the allegations are vague and general in nature.
3. Considering the nature of allegations and also the fact that the custodial interrogation is not necessary, it is felt that this is a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Section 438 of Cr.PC can be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is allowed as follows :
1) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 1.10.2012, who after interrogation shall produce the petitioner before the JFCM court concerned, which court on application for bail being filed by the petitioner shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the JFCM concerned.
2) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail.
3) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him.
4) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses.
5) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, of being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law.