Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition allowed; anticipatory bail granted to ...

Vishnu, Geetha, Somasekharan Pillai and Soumya v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 4282 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. Badharudeen
Judgment Date
2024-05-30
Court Decision / Holding
The Bail Application is allowed. The petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail with conditions including: (i) surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days for questioning and production before the jurisdictional court on arrest; (ii) bond of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties of equal amount; (iii) co-operation with investigation and availability for interrogation; (iv) no intimidation of witnesses or interference with the investigation; (v) no contact with the defacto complainant during the bail period; (vi) no commission of any other offense during the bail period; (vii) first petitioner shall not disturb the minor’s custody dispute until a competent court decides.”,
Final Disposition
Petition allowed; anticipatory bail granted to petitioners 1-4 with specified conditions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Vishnu
  • Geetha
  • Somasekharan Pillai
  • Soumya

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Station House Officer, Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam Rural
  • XXXXX XXXXX
  • XXXXX XXXXX

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • T.I. Unniraja
  • • S.G. Sreekanth
  • • S. Badusha
  • • Faheem Ahsan S.
  • • Vaideresh H.S.
  • • R.S. Visruth

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Mathews K. Nelluvely Reji
  • • Mathew M. (K/001163/2020)
  • • Mathew Varghese (K/001340/2019)
  • • Joel Reji Mathew (K/003780/2023)
  • • Sri. Renjit George, Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

These proceedings concern an anticipatory bail application before the Kerala High Court in a matrimonial dispute arising from Crime No. 0723/2024 at Sasthamcotta Police Station in Kollam. The petitioners—Vishnu (the husband), Geetha, Somasekharan Pillai (father of the husband), and Soumya (sister-in-law)—are named as the first accused and relatives. The prosecution alleges that the marriage took place on 8 May 2016 and that dowry, including Rs. 50,000 and gold ornaments weighing 101 sovereigns, were entrusted at the time of marriage. It is alleged that the petitioners thereafter subjected the defacto complainant to persecution, demanded more dowry, and obtained Rs. 5 lakh to purchase a car from the complainant’s father’s account. On 16 May 2024, allegedly when the defacto complainant sought custody of a minor child as directed by the Child Welfare Committee, she and the child were manhandled. Offences invoked include Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 498A, 354 IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The petitioners contend the allegations are false and motivated by a custody dispute; they offer to cooperate with investigation. The defacto complainant opposes bail, arguing petitioners are influential and that bail would hinder investigation and endanger the child. The court balances custodial concerns with investigative needs and grants anticipatory bail subject to conditions: surrender within ten days for interrogation, bond, cooperation, non-interference with witnesses and the minor, no further offences, and protection of custody disputes pending family court orders.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 341 IPCSection 294(b) IPCSection 323 IPCSection 498A IPCSection 75 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the allegations are false and that the complainant’s attempt to obtain custody of the minor, contrary to their understanding, led to the registration of this crime. They contend innocence and emphasize their willingness to cooperate with the investigation, urging anticipatory bail rather than custodial detention. They argue that arrest would disrupt family life and the child’s well-being, and that custodial interrogation is unnecessary as investigations can proceed with conditions. They request a balance that preserves rights while ensuring effective inquiry, including conditions to prevent witness intimidation and interference with the minor’s welfare.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents oppose bail, arguing petitioners 3 and 4 are influential and that granting anticipatory bail would impede the investigation and jeopardize the minor’s welfare. They emphasize that the offences are serious and that the defacto complainant, who is living with a paramour, requires protection. If bail is granted, stringent conditions are urged to prevent intimidation, harassment, or interference with witnesses or the child, and to ensure ongoing investigation. They urge the Court to consider the impact on the minor and to permit custodial interrogation if warranted and other remedies under law.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Vishnu, Geetha, Somasekharan Pillai and Soumya v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** **THURSDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4282 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.0723/2024 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONERS/1ST ACCUSED:** **1 VISHNU AGED 36 YEARS S/O SOMASEKHARAN PILLAI., RESIDING AT CHANDRAKANTHAM, IVERKALA, KUNNATHUR, PUTHANAMBALAM P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691553** **2 GEETHA AGED 65 YEARS D/O JAGADAMMA, RESIDING AT CHANDRAKANTHAM, IVERKALA, KUNNATHUR, PUTHANAMBALAM P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691553** **3 SOMASEKHARAN PILLAI AGED 66 YEARS S/O KUNJIRAMAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHANDRAKANTHAM, IVERKALA, KUNNATHUR, PUTHANAMBALAM P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691553** **4 SOUMYA AGED 38 YEARS D/O GEETHA, RESIDING AT 'THINKAL', IVERKALA EAST P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691507** **BY ADVS. T.I.UNNIRAJA S.G.SREEKANTH S.BADUSHA FAHEEM AHSAN.S VAIDERSH H.S. R.S.VISRUTH** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4282 OF 2024** **2** ## **RESPONDENT:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER SASTHANCOTTAH POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL, PIN - 690521** - **3 XXXXX XXXXX** - **4 XXXXX XXXXX** **BY ADVS. MATHEWS K. NELLUVELY REJI MATHEW.M(K/001163/2020) MATHEW VARGHESE(K/001340/2019) JOEL REJI MATHEW(K/003780/2023)** **SRI.RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION** **ON 30.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BAIL APPL. NO. 4282 OF 2024** **3** ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 30[th] day of May, 2024 Anticipatory bail plea at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 4, who are husband, parents and sister of the husband, in a matrimonial dispute is the crux of this petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the available materials. 3. The prosecution allegation is that the first accused married the defacto complainant on 08.05.2016 as per the religious ceremonies. Entrustment of Rs.50,000/- and gold ornaments, weighing 101 sovereigns, at the time of marriage is alleged. It is further alleged that thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 4 subjected the defacto complainant to persecution, demanding more dowry and also obtained Rs.5 lakh to purchase a car from the account of the father of the defacto complainant. There is allegation that at about 16 hours on **BAIL APPL. NO. 4282 OF 2024** **4** 16.05.2024, when the defacto complainant reached the residence of the accused for getting custody of the minor, as directed by the Child Welfare Committee Chairman, the same was resisted by the accused and the accused manhandled the defacto complainant and the child. This is the premise on which the prosecution alleges commission offences punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 498(A), 354 IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations are false and the attempt made by the defacto complainant to get the custody of the minor child in derogation of the understanding between them led to registration of this crime and the petitioners are innocent. Offering co-operation in the matter of investigation, he pressed for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant zealously opposed bail on the submission that petitioners 3 **BAIL APPL. NO. 4282 OF 2024** **5** and 4 are influential persons and grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners would be fatal to the investigation and the interest of the minor also. According to him, if at all bail is granted, overruling the objection raised by the defacto complainant, the same shall be on stringent conditions, to avoid harassment of the defacto complainant and the child. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor also shared the argument of the learned counsel for the defacto complainant. 7. Scrutiny of the records would show that the attempt to get custody of the child on 10.05.2024 and its aftermath led to the registration of this crime alleging the above offences. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the defacto complainant is living with a paramour, who is none other than a Circle Inspector of Police, and this crime invoking non-bailable offences was registered under his direction through the Station House Officer, Sasthamcottta Police Station, who is a friend of the Circle Inspector. **BAIL APPL. NO. 4282 OF 2024** **6** 8. Going by the allegations, there is no reason to detain the petitioners in custody since investigation can be ensured even without custodial interrogation in case of matrimonial discord. However, acting on the request of the defacto complainant, there shall be a direction to the accused not to interfere with the peaceful living of the defacto complainant and the minor and if the custody of the minor is a dispute in derrogation from the understanding, if any, that has been following, the parties are at liberty to move before the family court for an appropriate order requesting the custody of the minor. 9. Having considered the factual matrix of the case in the above context, I am inclined to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail. In the result, this bail application stands allowed and the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail on the following conditions: **BAIL APPL. NO. 4282 OF 2024** **7** - i. The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioners and record their statement. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioners before the Jurisdictional Court on the date of arrest itself. - ii. On such production, Jurisdictional Court shall release the petitioners on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) for themselves and by two sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court. - iii. The petitioners 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 petitioners shall not intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner. - v. The petitioners shall not meet, disturb or deal with the defacto complainant during the currency of this bail hereby granted. - vi. The petitioners shall not commit any other offence during the currency of this bail and any such event, if reported or came to the notice of this Court, the same shall be a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. **BAIL APPL. NO. 4282 OF 2024** **8** vii. The first petitioner shall not disturb the minor in the matter of custody, if the same is a dispute in deviation from the understanding that has been continuing, till a competent court considers grant of custody in accordance with law. **Sd/A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE** nkr