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

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 52209

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
VIPIN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./5492/2022



Bail may be granted if continued detention is deemed unnecessary despite serious allegations, provided specific conditions are imposed to safeguard the investigation.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 439; Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 306, 498A; Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Section 92(a)(c) - The court considered the nature of allegations, potential risks of tampering with evidence, and the petitioner's detention duration in deciding bail eligibility while imposing specific conditions for release.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner seeks bail after being accused of harassment leading to his wife's suicide. The allegations include dowry demands and mental abuse. The prosecution argues for detention due to the seriousness of charges and potential evidence tampering.

Finding of the Court:

The court acknowledged the seriousness of accusations but found continued detention unwarranted due to the petitioner's prior judicial custody without further justifiable risks presented to the prosecution’s case or evidence.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite serious allegations against him and potential risks of tampering with evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the duration of detention and absence of immediate evidence tampering risks justified the grant of bail under the specified conditions.

Final Decision: The petition for bail is allowed with specific conditions.

ORDER

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .

2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.232 of 2022 of Vellikulangara Police Station, Thrissur District alleging offences under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 92 (a)

(c) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 .

3. According to the prosecution, petitioner had married one Sandra on 02.11.2021 and due to the mental and physical harrassment after demanding dowry, the wife of the petitioner committed suicide by setting herself ablaze on 18.03.2022 and thereby the accused committed the offence.

4. Sri.Santhosh P.Poduval, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution case is false and that the deceased committed suicide for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner and that petitioner had no role in the suicide.

5. Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor contended that though the petitioner was arrested on 07.07.2022, releasing the petitioner, at this juncture may prejudice the prosecution case. It was further pointed out that there is every chance that the petitioner may tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses.

6. A perusal of the case diary reveals that though the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, since he was remanded to judicial custody on 07.07.2022, I am of the view that the continued detention of the petitioner is not required in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

7. In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:- (i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(iii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

(iv) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while he is on bail.

(v) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.

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