Allowed

Ravi Karunakaran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Oct 2007Bail Appl./5821/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judge R. Basant granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of matrimonial cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The Court held that arrest would hinder settlement, issued directions for release after bond with sureties, and mandated availability for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on execution of bond for Rs.25,000 with two sureties and compliance with interrogation directions.

Ravi Karunakaran Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2007 / 24TH ASWINA 1929

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5821 of 2007(R)

¶6

¶7

CRIME NO.450/07 OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶9

¶10

RAVI KARUNAKARAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, LAKSHMI SADAN, P.O.AMAYUR, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH

¶12

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT

¶13

¶14

STATE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.450 OF 2007), THRISSUR.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

R. BASANT, J.

¶19

B.A. No. 5821 OF 2007

¶20

Dated this the 16^th day of October, 2007

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant. He faces allegations of matrimonial cruelty punishable under Sec.498A of the IPC. A direction was issued that certain articles which are allegedly available with the petitioner must be handed over to the de facto complainant by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, all such articles admittedly available have already been handed over and an acknowledgment obtained in the presence of the Investigating Officer. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms that this has been done though the dispute as such has not been settled finally. The marriage took place only on 13/11/06.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner prays, the

¶24

B.A. No. 5821 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

¶25

learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to appropriate conditions.

¶26

In coming to this conclusion, I take note of the fact that the arrest and incarceration of the petitioner is likely to mar all chances of harmonious settlement of matrimonial disputes. I do also take note of the stand taken by the learned Public Prosecutor that no injury has resulted from the alleged cruelty inflicted. Appropriate conditions can, of course, be imposed.

¶27

In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C:

¶28

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 23/10/07. He shall be released on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

¶29

(ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on 24/10/07 and 25/10/07 and thereafter on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months. Subsequently, he shall so make himself available

¶30

B.A. No. 5821 OF 2007 -: 3 :-

¶31

for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so.

¶32

(iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all;

¶33

(iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 23/10/07 as directed in clause (i) above, he shall be released on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 23/10/07.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

¶36

Nan/

¶37

//true copy//

¶38

P.S. to Judge

Ravi Karunakaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Karunakaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Johnson @ Havala Johnson Vs State of Kerala

Subramanian Vs State of Kerala

Baburaj Vs State of Kerala

Siju Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by S.I. of Police

Anish, S/O.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala & Others

K.C.George & Others Vs State of Kerala