IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

TH FRIDAY, THE 26 DAY OF MAY 2023 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 3838 OF 2023 CRIME NO.349/2023 OF MULAMTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

JOSY SAM SUBASH AGED 28 YEARS S/O SUBASH @ SOMAN, ARAKKAL HOUSE, PATTANAKAD P.O., CHERTHALA, PIN – 688531 BY ADVS.

K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RITHIK S.ANAND ANU PAUL SREELAKSHMI MENON P.

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MULAMTHURTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682314

3 DAYA K. SHYJU AGED 21 YEARS D/O SHYJU KADAVATH, KADAVATH HOUSE, PATHIYARKULANGARA P.O., MULLASSERRY, CHAVAKAD, THRISSUR, PIN – 680552 BY ADV ADV C N PRABHAKARAN -SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.349/2023 of Mulamthuruthy Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498A and 323 of IPC.

2. The prosecution is as follows: The petitioner married the defacto complainant as per their religious rites on 24.04.2022, and thereafter they were residing together as husband and wife. It is alleged that while so, the petitioner started ill-treating the defacto complainant by making constant demands for more amounts and gold ornaments as dowry. It is also alleged that the defacto complainant was physically assaulted as well. The defacto complainant submitted the complaint in such circumstances, consequent to which the aforesaid crime was registered. This application is submitted by the petitioner as he apprehends arrest in connection with the investigation of the said case.

3. Heard Sri.K.N. Abhilash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.N.Prabhakaran, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. According to him, the offence under Section 498A would not be attracted as the parties were living together, and no legal marriage was performed between them. It is further pointed out that the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigation by complying with any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the application. It is pointed out that the investigation is at its preliminary stage. Therefore, if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it is likely to hamper the prospects of the investigation.

6. I have gone through the records, which include the FIR and the statements of the victim, made available by the learned Public Prosecutor. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no valid marriage between the parties. However, in the FIR, it is mentioned that a customary marriage was performed on 24.04.2022, but in the statement given by the victim, the date of marriage is seen mentioned as 28.04.2022. Therefore, there is some discrepancy concerning the date of the marriage and the same is relevant because the specific case of the petitioner is that no such marriage was ever solemnized and the relationship between them was only living together. Anyhow, those are all matters for investigation. When the allegations raised against the petitioner are taken into consideration, it can be seen that no serious injuries were sustained by the victim. Therefore, considering the overall circumstances, I deem it appropriate to pass an order to protect the personal liberty of the petitioner by ensuring the cooperation of the petitioner with the investigation.

In such circumstances, the application is disposed of on the following conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting himself to interrogation.

ii) After interrogat