SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26526

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
ANTONY A A – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 1976/2024



Advocates:
B.BIPINARUN BOSE

The court has the discretion to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, especially in cases involving matrimonial disputes, where custodial interrogation may not be necessary for effective investigation.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure - Section 438 - Pre-Arrest Bail

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a matrimonial dispute where the second accused, who is the father of the petitioner, is alleged to have shown porn videos and used abusive words against the de facto complainant. The prosecution has alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 509, 354, 354A(1)(i), 354-D and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Finding of the Court:

The court observed that the allegations appear to be the result of matrimonial discord and the same would require effective investigation. Since the investigation is possible even without custodial interrogation in a case involving matrimonial dispute, the court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail on certain conditions.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the condition that the petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days, cooperate with the investigation, and not intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation.

Final Decision: The petition for pre-arrest bail is allowed, and the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail on the specified conditions.

ORDER

Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2024 This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of second accused in crime No.78/2024 of Mannanchery Police Station, Alappuzha.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents form part of the case diary.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused married the de facto complainant as per religious rites on 11.07.2019, and they resided at the matrimonial home. The specific allegation is that while staying so, the second accused, who is the father of the petitioner, showed pone videos and used abusive words against the de facto complainant at 10.30 A.M.,on 27.12.2023 and also showed sexual overtures. On this premise, the prosecution alleges offences punishable under Sections 498-A , 509, 354, 354A(1)(i), 354-D and 34 of IPC . The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the allegations are false. He appeared before the investigating officer in view of obedience to the interim bail order passed on 16.04.2024.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor though read out the allegations and opposed the bail, it appears that the allegations are the result of matrimonial discord and the same would require effective investigation, Since the investigation is possible even without custodial interrogation in a case involving matrimonial dispute, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail on condition.

Therefore, this petition stands allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail on the following conditions:

    i.
    The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioner and record his statement. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the Jurisdictional Court on the date of arrest itself.
    ii.
    On such production, Jurisdictional Court shall release the petitioner on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) by himself and by two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.
    iii.
    The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so.
    iv.
    The petitioner shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner.
    v.
    The petitioner shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top