Kerala High Court
Vishnu Kumar vs The State Of Kerala on 14 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 6452 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 978/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1
VISHNU KUMAR
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.RAJENDRAN PILLAI, VELENGATTOTHU HOUSE, PATHIRIKKAL,
KUNNATHOOR, SOORANADU, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 520.
BY ADVS.
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
M.KIRANLAL
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
T.S.SARATH
SAMEER M NAIR
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA -
682 031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VELLOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 616.
PP.S.SEETHA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.09.2021, THE COURT ON 14.9.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA.6452/21
2
ORDER
Dated : 14th September, 2021
1. Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.855/2021 of Velloor Police
Station, Kottayam registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 294(b), 506 r/w Section 34 IPC. It is alleged
that the petitioner/1st accused and de facto complainant while
living together as husband and wife at his house, she has been
subjected to mental cruelty from 28.9.2017 till 5.7.2021, along
with accused Nos.2 and 3 in demand of dowry. It is also alleged
that on several days during the above period he has physically
tortured her . Finally on 5.7.2021 at about 2.00 pm at KSRTC bus
stand Kottayam, he pulled her down and kicked her .On 6.9.2019
he intimidated to do away with her and thereby committed the
offence aforementioned. Apprehending arrest petitioner
approaches this Court.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor produced the report filed by the
SHO, Velloor police station along with the copy of wound certificate
dated 30.9.2017. In view of the continuous physical and mental
torture by the petitioner upon the de facto complainant, the
BA.6452/21
learned Public Prosecutor seriously objects in considering the
petition for pre arrest bail.
3. Copy of the FIS is produced as Annexure-A2 and FIR is produced as
Annexure-A1. In the FIS the de facto complainant had given a
detailed narration of the physical and mental cruelty which she
was subjected to at the instance of the petitioner and family
members after marriage. The wound certificate is produced from
the side of the respondent and the report filed by the SHO would
prima facie show that there happened to have discharge from the
ears due to physical torture by the petitioner on 29.9.2017 at 4.30
pm and on the immediate next day on 30.9.2017 she had been
examined by the doctor at Taluk hospital, Piravom. Pinna
tenderness, ear discharge left ear, contusion on left TMJ region,
oedema over face and tenderness over left side of scalp and
contusion on left upper arm etc., had been noted by the doctor
and the alleged history is beating with hand on the left side of
head, ear and on the left hand. ENT consultation was also
prescribed and she was referred to higher centre for further follow
up treatment.
4. The wound certificate produced from the side of the respondent
BA.6452/21
prima facie proves the physical torture for which she was
subjected to at the hands of the petitioner. There is also allegation
about the physical torture on various occasions even when she
came to her family house in 2018 December for attending
marriage of her sister. It is also alleged that on 7.9.2020, she filed
a petition for divorce before the Family Court, Ettumanoor and
though notice was issued twice to the petitioner, he refused to
accept the same and he was contacted to have a meeting.
Accordingly on 5.7.2021 at 2.00 pm as required by him, she went
to KSRTC bus stand along with her two sisters. At that place also,
she had been manhandled by him. She was also alleged to have
threatened showing a glass bottle alleged to be Acid, to abandon
the case.
5. So on a mere glance through the FIS given by the de facto
complainant, there seems to have prima facie material to attract
the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. Of
late, there is a sudden increase of physical and mental torture of
married woman in demand of dowry and articles at the hands of
husbands and in laws. So when there are materials prima facie to
substantiate the allegation, the release of such husbands on pre-
BA.6452/21
arrest bail is not at all warranted. So I do not find any reason to
allow the petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner.
6. Annexure-A3 is the copy of Crl.M.P. 978/2021 dated 13.8.2021 of
the Court of Sessions, Kottayam whereby the learned Sessions
Judge has given an option to the petitioner to surrender before the
investigating officer and in spite of getting such an order, he
rushed to this Court for which I do not find any justifiable reason at
all. However, it is open for the petitioner to surrender before the
Investigating Officer within seven days staring from this date and
upon such surrender, after interrogation, on production before the
jurisdictional Magistrate, if any application for regular bail is filed
by the petitioner, it can be considered and disposed of in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
M.R.Anitha, Judge
Mrcs/13.9.
