Kerala High Court
Biju Mammen vs State Of Kerala on 19 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3099 OF 2024
CRIME NO.988/2023 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA
PETITIONERS/2nd AND 3rd ACCUSED:
1 BIJU MAMMEN
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O MAMMEN.K, THEKKETHALAKAL BANGALOW,
MANKAMKUZHI MURI, VETTIYAR VILLAGE,
MAVELLIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690558
2 SUSAN BIJU MAMMEN
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O BIJU MAMMEN, THEKKETHALAKAL BANGALOW,
MANKAMKUZHI MURI, VETTIYAR VILLAGE,
MAVELLIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690558
BY ADVS.
M.R.SARIN
P.SANTHOSHKUMAR
PARVATHI KRISHNA
LEKSHMI S.R
SAUMYA.P.S
ASHA MARY KURIAN
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
PP SMT SEENA C
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.3099 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
B.A. No. 3099 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. The petitioners are accused nos.2 and 3 in Crime No. 988/2023 of Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. The above case is registered against the petitioners and others alleging offences punishable under Sections 323, 326, 406, 506, 354, 498(A) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are the father and mother of the 1st accused.
3. The prosecution case is that 1 st accused, and the de facto complainant's daughter are husband and wife and they married on 15.05.2022. Thereafter, they started living at 1 st accused house and then at the workplace of 1 st accused in Abu Dhabi. It is alleged that the accused persons demanded more dowry. It is also alleged that the 1 st accused with the help of 2nd and 3rd accused assaulted the de facto B.A. No.3099 of 2024 3 complainant's daughter by inflicting severe bodily injury. The 4th and 5th accused also supports them. It is also alleged that the de facto complainant has gifted Rs 21 Lakhs and 65 sovereigns of gold at the time of marriage. It was misappropriated by the accused persons is the grievance. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that serious allegations are there against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the main allegation is against the 1st accused and the petitioners are the father and mother of the 1st accused. I do not want to make any observation about the merit of the case. Since the petitioners are the father and mother of the 1st accused and the main allegation is against the 1st accused, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The petitioners can be directed to co- operate with the investigation.
B.A. No.3099 of 20244
6. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;
3. Petitioners shall appear before the B.A. No.3099 of 2024 5 Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;
5 Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;
6. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663]
7. If any of the above conditions are violated B.A. No.3099 of 2024 6 by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE APA