Kerala High Court
Alex Jose 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. 3127 OF 2024
CRIME NO.521/2024 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
ALEX JOSE, AGED 32 YEARS
S/O KUNJUMON @ JOSE GEORGE,
THEYKKANATH HOUSE,PAZHANGANADU
DESOM,KIZHAKKAMBALAM ,KIZHAKKAMBALAM PO,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683
562.
BY ADVS.
SHEEBA MARIAM. J.
ARUNDHATHY K. ALIAS
ANUPAMA K.ALIAS
BINO V.MATHEW
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.
2 SOPHIA C BABU, AGED 27 YEARS
D/O BABU C.JOSE,CHIRIYAKANDATHIL HOUSE,
KIZHAKKUMBATTUKARA DESOM, CHEMBOOKAVU VILLAGE,
EAST FORT P.O,THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 005.
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:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3127 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
.............................................
B.A.No.3127 of 2024
...............................................................
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 521/2024 of Town
East Police Station, Thrissur. The above case is registered
against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The petitioner herein is the husband of the de facto
complainant. The marriage between them was solemnized on
14.09.2020 and a girl child was born in the wedlock. It is
submitted that, after the marriage the petitioner and the de
facto complainant resided together at the petitioner's house.
There is mental and physical harassment from the side of the
BAIL APPL. NO. 3127 OF 2024
petitioner is the prosecution case.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. Admittedly, the issue arises out of a matrimonial dispute.
Some cases are pending before the Family Court in
connection with the matrimonial dispute. Since it is a
matrimonial dispute, there is a chance for restoration of the
marital relationship between the petitioner and the de facto
complainant. Therefore, if the petitioner is arrested, the
chances of a reunion will be remote. In such circumstances,
this bail application can be allowed with stringent conditions.
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
BAIL APPL. NO. 3127 OF 2024
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
7. 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:
i. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days
from today and shall undergo interrogation;
ii.After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the
petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;
Iii.Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for
interrogation as and when required. The petitioner 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police
officer;
iv.Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional
Court;
v.Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which
they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected;
BAIL APPL. NO. 3127 OF 2024
8. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner,
the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to
law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
9. 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 petitioner even while the petitioner is 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].
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
AMV/19/04/2024
