Sandeep.C vs State Of Kerala

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10861 Ker
Judgement Date : 12 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Sandeep.C vs State Of Kerala on 12 April, 2024

Author: V.G.Arun

Bench: V.G.Arun

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
 FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
                 BAIL APPL. NO. 2829 OF 2024
   CRIME NO.112/2024 OF Kannavam Police Station, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CRMC NO.473 OF 2024
OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY
PETITIONER/S:

          SANDEEP.C
          AGED 38 YEARS
          S/O.PAVITHRAN,CHENAMBATH HOUSE, MANANTHERI
          AMSOM, CHITTARIPARAMB
          DESOM,P.O.CHITTARIPARAMB,KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN -
          670650
          BY ADVS.
          M.P.PRIYESHKUMAR
          SHANAVAS NALAKATH RANDUPURAYIL

RESPONDENT/S:

          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:

          PP MAYA M.N.


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.2829 of 2024

                                  -2-



                                ORDER

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024 Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.112 of 2024 of Kannavam Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A and 406 of IPC. The crime is registered at the instance of the petitioner's wife, on the allegation that the petitioner had harassed her demanding more dowry.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are patently false. It is pointed out that the marriage had taken place way back on 13.11.2011 and the couple have a child aged 9 years. According to the Counsel, some minor disputes in the marital relationship had prompted the de facto complainant to file the complaint. It is submitted that there is a possibility of the dispute being settled and the B.A.No.2829 of 2024 -3- parties reuniting.

3. I heard learned Public Prosecutor also. The marriage having been solemnised on 13.11.2011 and there being a child aged 9 years, there appears to be some substance in the submission of the learned Counsel that the marital discord between the parties had led to the filing of the complaint. I also take note of the submission that, mediation talks are going on and the parties may reunit. If so, arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner will only worsen the relationship. Hence, the bail application is allowed with the following directions;

(i) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within two weeks.

(ii) The investigating officer shall interrogate the petitioner and in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail, on the petitioner executing bond for B.A.No.2829 of 2024 -4- Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

(iii) Petitioner shall not get involved in any similar offence during the pendency of the bail and shall not, in any manner, try to influence the witnesses or intimidate them.

(iv) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

If any one of the above condition is violated, the investigating officer will be at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/