Peter John vs State Of Kerala

Shircy V, J

 Application for pre-arrest bail.

Petitioners are the accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.699 of 2021 of Keezhvaypur Police Station, Pathanamthitta District registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 294(b), 323, 325, 354A, 354A(1)(i), 354A(1)(ii), 354(1)(iv) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that the first accused, the son of the first petitioner had married the defacto complainant on 02.09.20219 as per the custom

of their community and they resided together as husband and wife at his residence. While so she was subjected to severe mental and physical cruelty

by her husband as well these petitioners demanding more dowry. The first petitioner had also attempted to outrage her modesty while she was residing

at her matrimonial home. Thus, these petitioners have committed the alleged offences.

Heard both sides.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners in fact, the first accused had married the defacto complainant in the year 2019 and a child was

born to them in the wedlock. Due to their strained relationship, she left the matrimonial house and started to reside with her parents and she is with her

parents for the last 6 months. On 30.05.2021 the first petitioner along with the third petitioner visited her house to offer their gifts and presents to the

minor child of the defacto complainant, who was celebrating his birthday. But they were prevented by the defacto complainant from handing over the

presents to the child and later she filed a complaint raising wild allegation against the parents of the defacto complainant as well the third petitioner,

who in fact tried to sort out the dispute between the parties. Though the allegations levelled against them are absolutely false and baseless, they

apprehend unnecessary arrest and hence this application.

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that very serious allegations have been levelled against these petitioners including the first

accused, who had already been arrested and released on bail. Now the investigation of the case is well in progress but the application is opposed, as

granting of bail will adversely affect the smooth course of investigation.

It is true that allegations levelled especially against the first petitioner is very grave and serious in nature. But it is a fact that the defacto

complainant was residing away from her husband and matrimonial home for more than six months. She has not raised any allegation against the first

petitioner, her father-in-law that he attempted to outrage her modesty at that point of time. Only after 30.05.2021 when the first petitioner as well the

third petitioner visited her house to see the child the complaint has been lodged against these petitioners.

Considering the entire facts involved in this case, I do not find any materials as such to infer that custodial interrogation of these petitioners are

absolutely necessary for the prosecution to proceed with the investigation of the case, which is already well in progress. Therefore, I am inclined to

grant pre-arrest bail to these petitioners subject to the following conditions :-

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each

to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the event of their arrest.

(ii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing.

(iii)They shall co-operate with the investigation and trial of the case.

(iv) They 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 or tamper with the evidence.

(v) They shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.