Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1502 (KER)

Nikhil Lal v. State of Kerala

2017-12-13

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in Crime No.200 of 2017 of Meppady Police Station, registered alleging offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 294(b), 506, 354, 406 read with 34 of the IPC. 3. The de facto complainant is the wife of the petitioner herein. The marriage between the parties took place on 28.5.2015. The petitioner who was working abroad left India, two months after the wedding, to rejoin work. Alleging that the petitioner and his family members subjected the de facto complainant to physical and mental harassment with a view to coerce her to bring more dowry, a complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate which ultimately led to the registration of the crime on 19.7.2017. 4. In the course of proceedings, the de facto complainant filed an application seeking intervention. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as early as on 2.4.2016, the de facto complainant had preferred Annexure-B complainant before the Women's Cell, Wayanad, wherein she stated in unmistakable terms that she had been living separately for the past 9 months. The only allegation in the complaint is that there arose some misunderstanding between the wife and husband when a message sent from her male friend was found in her mobile phone. Her only request was to summon the parties and to settle the issue. She had no case then that the petitioner herein nor his family members had subjected her to cruelty or harassment attracting the offence under section 498A of the IPC. It is also submitted that the petitioner herein has filed a petition on 17.6.2017 seeking divorce before the Family Court, Kozhikode and it was on receipt of summons that the de facto complainant has ventured to file the instant complaint leading to the registration of the crime. 7. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent on the other hand submitted that specific allegations were not raised earlier as she was optimistic of a reunion. However, it is not disputed that their joint residence was only during the first two months. 8. The learned public prosecutor on instructions submits that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent on the other hand submitted that specific allegations were not raised earlier as she was optimistic of a reunion. However, it is not disputed that their joint residence was only during the first two months. 8. The learned public prosecutor on instructions submits that the petitioners are not persons with any criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that incidents of physical cruelty are not borne out by medical records. 9. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the materials in support thereof, the character and antecedents of the accused, the relationship between the parties, and attendant facts and circumstances, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the instant case. In the result, this bail application is allowed, subject to the following conditions: (i) It is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in connection with the Crime No.200 of 2017 of Meppady Police Station, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer effecting the arrest. (ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. (iii) The petitioner 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) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.