Dismissed

Sameerkumar Singh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2007Bail Appl./7456/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for anticipatory bail filed by an accused under Section 498A IPC was dismissed. The court held that the case does not fall within the scope of discretionary anticipatory bail and directed the applicant to seek regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioner directed to approach Investigator or Magistrate for regular bail.

Sameerkumar Singh Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2007 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1929

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 7456 of 2007() ----------------------------CRIME NO. 650 OF 2007 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION

¶5

PETITIONER:ACCUSED

¶6

¶7

SAMEERKUMAR SINGH, S/O.SHAILENDRA SINGH, AGED 32 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT B-32, P & T QUARTERS, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V.

¶9

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT STATE AND ITS OFFICER

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE CIRCLE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION COMPOUND, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.

¶13

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

R. BASANT, J.

¶17

- - - - B.A.No. 7456 of 2007

¶18

¶19

Dated this the 6th day of December, 2007

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. He faces allegations under Section 498A I.P.C. The victim wife, a Post Graduate, and the petitioner both hail from Utter Pradesh. The petitioner is working as Inspector, Posts, RMS “TV” 1^st Sub Division, Trivandrum.

¶22

The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that the wife, who was taken to city of his work, was subjected to inhuman cruelty on the plea that she was older than what her father represented her to be at the time of marriage. It is further alleged that she was forced to bring more money and properties from her parents. She could not do that. On account of that she was subjected to cruelty. The allegations reveal that the wife was hit with an iron chain. She managed to escape and run out of the house. She took shelter from neighbours. She was sent to

¶23

B.A.No. 7456 of 2007

¶24

¶25

the hospital. It is thereafter that the F.I.R. was registered. Her parents, on getting information, came from Utter Pradesh. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. He apprehends imminent arrest.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The father of the defacto complainant is a very influential person. He has made use of his influence and made false allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner's interest will be greatly affected if he were arrested and detained. He is likely to loose his employment if he goes to custody.

¶27

The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that all the sublime concern to save the institution of marriage cannot operate in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner. The allegations reveal the depravity of mind of the petitioner. There was an earlier matrimonial proceedings. The husband had claimed restitution of conjugal rights. The lady has come before the Family Court. Settlement was arrived at. It is thereafter that they were residing together.

¶28

B.A.No. 7456 of 2007

¶29

¶30

The learned Prosecutor has placed the case diary before me, which reveals the nature of the alleged cruelty inflicted on the wife. She was beaten with an iron chain. She bore telltale marks of such violence. The learned Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the statements of the neighbours, which also clinchingly support the version of the lady. In these circumstances I am satisfied that this is not a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶31

Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am unable to find any features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner must be directed to appear before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course.

¶32

This application is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

(R. BASANT) Judge

¶34

¶35

B.A.No. 7456 of 2007

¶36

Sameerkumar Singh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameerkumar Singh 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

C.L.Anto Vs State of Kerala

Narayanadas Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Saji Vs State of Kerala

Bijoy Vs State of Kerala

Sajeer & Another Vs State of Kerala & Another

Ajaydev Vs State of Kerala