Uthaman vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17910 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
    WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943
                        BAIL APPL. NO. 6106 OF 2021
     CRIME NO.415/2021 OF Vallikunnam Police Station, Alappuzha
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 3413/2021 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
                    FIRST CLASS , KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

     1      UTHAMAN
            AGED 51 YEARS,S/O BHASKARAN,
            LEKSHMI BHAVANAM, KADUVINAL MURI,
            VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

     2      SULOCHANA
            AGED 47 YEARS, W/O UTHAMAN,
            LEKSHMI BHAVANAM,KADUVINAL MURI,
            VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

            BY ADVS.
            B.KRISHNA MANI
            DHANUJA M.S



RESPONDENT/STATE AND THE COMPLAINANT:

     1      STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
            KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

     2      THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
            VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION,
            VALLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690501.

            BY SMT. SEETHA S. , P.P.


     THIS   BAIL     APPLICATION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BA No.6106/2021                             -2-

                                     ORDER

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.415/2021 of Vallikkunnam Police

Station, Alappuzha District alleging commission of offences under Sections 304 (B)

and 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that as a result of continuous

harassment of late Suchitra, who was married to their son Vishnu, she committed

suicide on 22-06-2021 at the house of the accused by hanging. Sri. B. Krishna Mani

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners

have been wrongly implicated in the crime and that there no harassment was meted

out to late Suchitra. It is submitted with reference to Annexures-II & III that entire

gold ornaments and properties belonging to Suchitra were handed over to her parents

immediately after the death of Suchitra. He would submit that considering the age of

the petitioners and considering the fact that they have been in custody from 26-07-

2021 they are entitled to be released on bail. He would also place reliance on the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P and another;

2017 (4) KHC 163 to contend that the Supreme Court had issued certain directions in

the matter of arrest and detention of close relatives in cases involved in Section 498A

of IPC and that the guidelines issued by the court have not been complied with in this

case.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submit that the husband of

the deceased Suchitra is an Army officer and had left the marital home within one

month of the marriage. It is submitted that deceased Suchitra had been harassed by

the petitioners demanding dowry on the premise that her parents have not paid the

agreed sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, though they had provided a car as promised. It is also

submitted that the day before the death of Suchitra while she was on a video call with

her mother the 2nd petitioner openly abused Suchitra and she had openly cried aloud

while speaking to her mother. The learned Public Prosecutor therefore submits that

the petitioners are clearly involved in the matter.

4. I have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Sharma

(supra), I am of the opinion that in view of the fact that the Supreme Court has clearly

indicated that the directions/guidelines issued by the court will not apply in offences

involved in tangible physical injuries or death, the question of examining whether

those guidelines were followed before the arrest of the petitioners does not arise for

consideration. The petitioners are stated to be aged 51 and 41 years respectively.

Considering the age of the petitioners, and the fact that their custodial interrogation

may not be necessary for investigation of the case considering the fact that they are in

custody from 26-07-2021, I am of the opinion that they can be released on bail on

01-10-2021 subject to the following conditions.-

(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent

sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate Court-I, Kayamkulam.

(ii) They shall appear before the Investigating officer on every Saturday between 10

a.m. and 11 a.m. until further orders.

(iii) They shall enter the local limits of Vallikkunnam Police Station only for the

purpose of complying with the directions to report before the Station House

Officer of that Police Station on very Saturday.

(iv) They shall not attempt to contact or influence any person who may be a witness

in the crime registered against them.

If any of these conditions are violated, it is open for the prosecution to move the

J.F.C.M-I, Kayamkulam for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

AMG