Sandeep.C vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 10861 Ker

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

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

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/