Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 12TH JYAISHTA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 460 OF 2021 PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SABIN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O SREENATH, THADATHIL HOUSE, POTHUPARA, PALLIKKUNNU P O , KUTTIKKANAM, PEERIMEDU VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK IDUKKI, PIN - 685531 BY ADV M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 SHEEBA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O SUSEELA , HARISREE HOUSE, THOTTAMON , RANNI VILLAGE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689672 SR PP SRI SANTHOSH PETER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2021
This application is filed by the petitioner, the husband of the 2 nd respondent seeking for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.207 of 2020 of Ranni Police Station. The crime was registered on the basis of the FIS lodged by the 2nd respondent.
2. The allegations were that after the marriage on
07.09.2009, the petitioner continuously demanded more dowry from the 2nd respondent and also ill treated her. In view of the frequent harassments and demands for more dowry, the parents of the 2 nd respondent was compelled to obtain a loan and to purchase 10 cents of property at Ranni for construction of a house. In the year 2014, a sum of Rs.18 lakhs was obtained from Canara Bank and a house was constructed in the property purchased. Thereafter, the 2 nd respondent was compelled to sell her parental share. It is alleged that the petitioner has some illicit connection with a lady in his office and on questioning that also, she was assaulted.
3. In the above circumstances, FIS was lodged by the
respondent before the Ranni Police and on it's basis, Crime No.207 of 2020 was registered at Ranni Police Station, Pathanamthitta. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the allegations are devoid of merits and the petitioner is innocent.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that apart
from the offences referred to in the Bail Application offences under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and 403 IPC were also added into the crime later and investigation is progressing. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that evidence of any serious injuries for the respondent are not forthcoming in the case on hand.
5. This Court finds in the context of the case that custodial
interrogation is totally unwarranted. Moreover, detention of a spouse would only worsen the situation and hamper the possibility of an amicable settlement to be arrived at by the parties at a later point of time.
6. In the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the application and directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail by the arresting officer on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum and subject to the conditions hereinbelow mentioned;
1. The petitioner shall not interfere with the progress of investigation.
2. The petitioner shall make him available before the
Investigating Officer at 10 am on every Mondays commencing from 07/06/2021 for a period of three months or till the filing of final report, whichever is earlier.
3. Petitioner shall not be involved in any other crimes.
4. The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses of the prosecution.
5. Petitioner shall co-operate with the interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required by him. Violations of any of the conditions will result in cancellation of bail. Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JJ JUDGE