Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS THURSDAY, THE23D DAY OF OCTOBER20141ST KARTHIKA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 7413 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1163/2014 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM ---------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- PRASAD, AGED39YEARS,S/O. MADHAVAN, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, AMBALATHUMVILA, VALAKOM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE : -------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 506. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2310-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: bp ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
================== B.A.No.7413 of 2014 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2014 ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1163/2014 of Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam district, alleging offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the prosecution case is that the petitioner had married the defacto complainant (Sreedevi) on 31.1.2005 and that she has been residing in the matrimonial home along with the petitioner's parents and that her parents had given 17 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs. 1 lakh at the time of her marriage and that the petitioner had obtained these gold ornaments from her and misused for his own use and it is alleged that the petitioner is demanding more money for clearing off his dues incurred for the expenses for the construction of the house and had physically and mentally harassed her and that, due to such cruelty, she was constrained to leave the petitioner's home and is now living with her parents, etc.
2. Sri.Alexander George, the learned counsel for the B.A.7413/14 - :
2. :- petitioner would submit that the entire allegations raised against the petitioner are absolutely false and that the petitioner had found that his wife is having some relation with another person and most of the time she was engaged in talking with outsiders over phone and that when the petitioner questioned her, she had left the matrimonial home along with the children on 5.6.2014 without the consent and knowledge of the petitioner and that he was constraining to construct a house because the wife had demanded that she should live separately and he had constructed a house in his share of 30 cents of property near the family house and they resided together and that the petitioner had in fact sent a lawyer's notice for restitution of conjugal rights, etc. Accordingly, the petitioner would pay that the relief of pre-arrest bail may be granted to the petitioner.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in case this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail in this case, the same may be conditioned with necessary safeguards to protect the bonafide interest of the prosecution.
4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and on a consideration of B.A.7413/14 - :
3. :- the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to order and allow the plea of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in this case subject to necessary conditions, so as to protect the bonafide interest of the prosecution. Accordingly, it is it is ordered that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner herein in connection with the above said crime, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the above crime and subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within 3 days from the execution of the bail bond before the Investigating Officer and if the petitioner is not a holder of passport, then he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport in connection with his travel abroad, then he is free to approach the court below concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case such an application is filed, the trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, is free to consider the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking necessary guidance from the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in the case Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala, reported in 2009 (2) KLT712 notwithstanding the aforementioned conditions imposed by this Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar or graver in nature. (iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when required. (iv) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or B.A.7413/14 - :
4. :- attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever. If the petitioner violates any of the conditions as ordered above, then the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled. With the above said directions, this Bail Application stands finally disposed of. Sd/- sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge