Allowed

K.Kumaran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Oct 2007Bail Appl./6291/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Kerala High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail to a married couple facing domestic allegations. The court noted the complaint arose from belated marriage maladjustments and lack of external injuries. Bail was granted subject to conditions including the performance of interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions to appear before Magistrate, execute bond for Rs.25,000, and appear for interrogation.

K.Kumaran Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2007 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1929

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6291 of 2007()

¶6

¶7

CRIME NO.599/2007 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION

¶8

PETITIONERS : ACCUSED:

¶9

¶10

K.KUMARAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.AMBU VAIDYAR, RESIDING AT GANESH BHAVAN, ATHIYAMBUR, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDRUG TALUK, KASARAGOD.

¶11

KALLYANI, AGED 65 YEARS, D/O.AMBU VAIDYAR, RESIDING AT GANESH BHAVAN, ATHIYAMBUR, BALLA VILLAGE, HOSDRUG TALUK, KASARAGOD.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT:

¶14

¶15

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

R.BASANT, J

¶19

B.A.No.6291 of 2007

¶20

Dated this the 23^rd day of October, 2007

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are the husband and sister in law of the defacto complainant. The spouses had got married rather belatedly. The marriage took place on 5.4.07. By 19.09.07, the defacto complainant wife has gone before the learned Magistrate with a complaint which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are totally incorrect and false. Exaggerated and fanciful allegations are being raised by the wife on account of maladjustments in the late marriage. The petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma of undeserved arrest and detention. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application for anticipatory bail. I reckon that as an informed and reasonable stand by the learned Public Prosecutor. I take note of the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the victim/complainant has not suffered any external injuries to support the allegations of physical cruelty. Subject to appropriate conditions, I am satisfied, anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners.

¶25

In the result, the Bail Application is, allowed. The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶26

B.A.No.6291 of 2007

¶27

¶28

i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 30.10.07. They shall be enlarged on regular bail on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate;

¶29

ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 3 p.m on 31.10.07 and 01.11.2007 and thereafter between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays for a period of one months. Subsequently the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so;

¶30

iii) If the petitioners do 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 petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law as if those directions were not issued at all;

¶31

iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 30.10.07 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released from custody on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 30.10.2007.

¶32

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶33

rtr/-

K.Kumaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kumaran 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

Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala

Gokuldas Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Das Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Jayan Vs State of Kerala

Jiffry Vs State of Kerala