SINTHA P v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In the result, the applications are allowed, subject to
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 156(3), 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 34
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 s. 6(1)
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. On an anxious consideration of the materials placed on record, and taking note of the fact that the dispute that has been raised in Annexure 2 complaint is a civil dispute, arising out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties, I am of the…
Judgment
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 21ST POUSHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 11514 OF 2023 CRIME NO.1887/2023 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER: KRISHNANKUTTY AGED 65 YEARS S/O. DAMODARAN, USHAS, KOTTAMPALLY, MADATHIL KARAZHMA, OACHIRA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY THALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 690526 BY ADVS. P.V.DILEEP A.MUJEEB REHUMAN RESPONDENTS: 1 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KARUNAGAPPALLY .P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 690573 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP SMT SEETHA S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.01.2024, ALONG WITH BA.NO. 11484/23,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A. NOS.11484 & 11514 OF 2023 3 Dated this the 11th day of January, 2024 COMMON ORDER The applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for orders of pre- arrest bail.
B.A.No. 11484/2023 is filed by the first accused and B.A. No. 11514/2023 is filed by the second accused in Crime No.1887/2023 of Karunagapally Police Station, Kollam, registered against the accused, on the basis of a private complaint, for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 193, 196, 197, 209, 464, 465, 468 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The gist of the allegations in Annexure 2 private complaint is that, the de facto complainant was married to the first accused and subsequently their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual concent by the Family Court, Alappuzha in O.P No. 1057/2018. Thereafter, the de facto complainant married another B.A. NOS.11484 & 11514 OF 2023 4 lady on 10.2.2022. Then, the first accused filed M.C. No. 80/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- I, Kayamkulam, invoking the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, against the de facto complainant, on the basis of a marriage certificate that was issued by the second accused. The said certificate is forged and fabricated. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
Heard; Sri. Dileep P.V., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the bail applications and Smt. Seetha S, the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusation levelled against them. The first accused was married to the de facto complainant. There is no case of forgery as alleged by the de facto complainant. It is only as a counter blast to the proceedings initiated by the first accused, the private complaint has been filed by the de facto complainant and on that basis the case has been B.A. NOS.11484 & 11514 OF 2023 5 registered. The custodial interrogation of the accused is not at all necessary. The petitioners are willing to co- operate with the investigation. Hence, the applications may be allowed.
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the applications. She submitted that the petitioners will have to be questioned for the purpose of revealing the truth. If at all this Court is inclined to grant an order of pre- arrest bail, stringent conditions may be imposed.
Operative part
On an anxious consideration of the materials placed on record, and taking note of the fact that the dispute that has been raised in Annexure 2 complaint is a civil dispute, arising out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties, I am of the definite view that the custodial interrogation of the accused is not at all necessary. Instead, the petitioners can be directed to co-operate with the Investigating officer, so that investigation can be completed. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the bail applications and grant the petitioners orders of pre-arrest B.A. NOS.11484 & 11514 OF 2023 6 bail. In the result, the applications are allowed, subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. ii) In the event of the petitioners arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce them before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself. iii).
On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioners on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; iv). The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs; v). The petitioners shall not intimidate witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner; B.A. NOS.11484 & 11514 OF 2023 7 vi). The petitioners shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail. vii). In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. viii).
Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be filed and entertained before the court below. rmm11/1/2024 SD/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE B.A. NOS.11484 & 11514 OF 2023 8 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 11484/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-1 Annexure-2 Annexure-3 Annexure-4 Annexure-5 Annexure-6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 1887/2023 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT DATED 28.11.2023. THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FORWARDED U/S 156(3) CR.P.C BY THE DEFACTOCOMPLAINT/HUSBAND BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM DATED 07.11.2023. THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY/2 ND ACCUSED FROM KURUNGAPPALLI PARAMPIL SREE BHADRA BHAGAVATHI, SREE SUBRAMANYA SWAMI TEMPLE, OACHIRA DATED 25.03.2011 SHOWING THAT THE MARRIAGE HELD ON 23.03.2011. THE TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD ISSUED BY THE THALUK SUPPLY OFFICER DATED 16.05.2012 SHOWING THE NAME OF PETITIONER AS WIFE. THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT NUMBERED AS O.S.NO. 36/2014 PENDING BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT KAYAMKULAM. THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED U/S 6(1) OF D.V. ACT BEFORE THE J.F.M.C COURT-I KAYAMKULAM NUMBERED AS M.C. NO. B.A. NOS.11484 & 11514 OF 2023 9 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 11514/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-1 Annexure-2 Annexure-3 Annexure-4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO. 1887/2023 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT. THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FORWARDED U/S 156(3) CR.P.C BY THE DEFACTOCOMPLAINT/HUSBAND OF 1ST ACCUSED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM DATED 07.11.2023. THE TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD ISSUED BY THE THALUK SUPPLY OFFICER DATED 16.05.2012 SHOWING THE NAME OF 1ST PETITIONER AS WIFE. THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED U/S 6(1) OF D.V. ACT BEFORE THE J.F.M.C COURT-I KAYAMKULAM NUMBERED AS M.C. NO. 80/2023.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the applications are allowed, subject to
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 156(3), 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 6(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 11 Jan 2024. The bench was C S DIAS.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.