High Court Kerala High Court

Aravindhaksha Kurup vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Aravindhaksha Kurup vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 269 of 2009()


1. ARAVINDHAKSHA KURUP, AGED 60 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. VINOD A, AGED 27 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PAUL MATHEW (PERUMPILLIL)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :04/02/2009

 O R D E R
                           K.HEMA, J.

               -----------------------------------------
                       B.A.No.269 of 2009
               -----------------------------------------

            Dated this the 4th February, 2009

                            O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 498A of the

Indian Penal Code. Petitioners are accused 2, 3 and 1, who are

father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband of de facto

complainant. According to prosecution, petitioners were

harassing de facto complainant ever since the marriage

demanding more money and dowry, after already

misappropriating money and gold given to her at the time of

marriage.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that

petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. The

marriage between first accused and de facto complainant took

place on 16.3.2008. The first accused is a Manager of an

Insurance Company. Thereafter, the parties were living hapily

in the house. But, de facto complainant did not conceive.

Therefore, she was taken to a doctor for consultation and as

per Annexure-I dated 1.10.2008, both parties had consultation

BA.269/09 2

with the doctor, when she was having urinary track infection

and the medical record reveals that both of them expressed

their desire to conceive. Just after one month, de facto

complainant was taken away by her parents by force on

8.12.2008 and she was detained in her parental house.

First accused moved a petition for habeas corpus and

when de facto complainant appeared before the court, she

stated that first accused is mad and that she was not detained

by any person etc. She was therefore, allowed to go with the

parents. Thereafter, first accused attempted to commit suicide

on two occasions. Annexure-II is a document issued by the

doctor relating to this, which shows that on 21.12.2008, she

attempted to commit suicide by cutting the vein and thereafter

by hanging and both attempts were futile. First accused was

also reportedly found to be depressed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that the

allegations that there was demand of dowry is absolutely

incorrect. In fact, various amounts were deposited in the

Insurance Company in the name of de facto complainant and

BA.269/09 3

also in the name of first accused and also by showing de facto

complainant as the nominee. Annexures 3 to 13 would prove

this fact. But, after filing of the habeas corpus petition and

disposal of the same, a private complaint is filed by de facto

complainant making false allegation, it is submitted. According

to petitioners, the only reason for the marital disharmony is

that de facto complainant was not able to conceive after the

marriage.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the

allegations in the complaint, de facto complainant was beaten

up and was taken to her house on an earlier occasion and first

accused is stated to be mentally sick and she cannot live with

the first accused etc.

6. On hearing both sides, considering the various facts

submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, which are

supported by documents also, and on a prima facie satisfaction

of the relevant facts, I find that anticipatory bail can be

granted to petitioners and hence, the following order is

passed:

BA.269/09 4

Petitioners shall surrender before the

Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from

today and they shall be released on bail on their

executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two

solvent sureties each for the like sum to the

satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned, on

the following conditions:

i) Petitioners shall report before the investigating

officer as and when directed.

iii). Petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or

influence the witnesses or intimidate them or

commit any offence while on bail.

Petition is allowed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.