Suja And Ors vs State Of Kerala

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.3378/2020 of Neyyattinkara Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners and

another alleging offences punishable under Sections 324, 308, 498A and 506 r/w 34 IPC.

The prosecution case is that the 1st accused married the defacto complainant on 18.5.2020. It is alleged that during the period between 19.5.2020 to

30.8.2020, the 2nd accused mentally harassed the defacto complainant demanding dowry. It is also alleged that the 2nd accused harassed the defacto

complainant saying that she is not beautiful and has not brought sufficient dowry. It is also alleged that the 2nd accused threatened to kill the defacto

complainant by strangulating with a shawl on 29.8.2020. Thereafter, the present complaint is filed on 20.11.2020.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that accused Nos.2 to 4 are the in laws of the defacto complainant. The allegation that the 2nd petitioner

tried to commit the offence under Section 308 IPC is a false case raised by the defacto complainant. The counsel submitted that the alleged incident

happened on 29.8.2020 and there is no medical evidence in this case. Moreover, the complaint is filed only on 20.11.2020. That itself shows that the

case against the 2nd accused is not correct. The counsel submitted that the 1st accused filed Annexure 6 petition before the Family Court for

declaring the marriage as null and void. After getting the notice in that petition, the present complaint is filed. The counsel submitted that the petitioners

are ready to abide any condition, if this Court grant them bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is

necessary.

After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. I don't want to make any observation about the merit of

the case. Admittedly, the case is registered in connection with the matrimonial relationship between the 1st accused and the defacto complainant. The

petitioners are the in laws of the defacto complainant. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think, this bail application can be

allowed on stringent conditions.

Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench of this

Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.

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:

The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail 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.

The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

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.

The petitioners shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of

social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic.

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.