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
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.
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
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
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
