Partly allowed

Solomon Chacko v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Feb 2008Bail Appl./992/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application involved four accused in a matrimonial dispute where charges were registered based on a private complaint. The police had deleted three accused, leaving only the first petitioner. The court granted anticipatory bail to the first petitioner with specific conditions, including surrender and interrogation timelines, while dismissing the application for the other three as their a

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to first petitioner subject to surrender, interrogation, and bond conditions; application dismissed for petitioners 2 to 4.

Solomon Chacko Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 992 of 2008()

¶6

---------------------------CRIME NO.16/2008 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

SOLOMON CHACKO,KUZHITHARA VEEDU, KOTTOOR,KAVOYOOR VILLAGE,THIRUVALLA TALUK.

¶10

RAJU,KUZHITHARA VEEDU,KOTTOOR, KAVOYOOR VILLAGE,THIRUVALLA TALUK.

¶11

LILLY,KUZHITHARA VEEDU,KOTTOOR, KAVOYOOR VILLAGE,THIRUVALLA TALUK.

¶12

KUNJUMON,KUZHITHARA VEEDU,KOTTOOR, KOVOYOOR VILLAGE,THIRUVALLA TALUK.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE,THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION.

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI S.U.NAZAR

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

R. BASANT, J.

¶21

¶22

Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are the husband of the defacto complainant and his relatives. Altogether there are four petitioners. The crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the learned Magistrate and referred by the Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the course of investigation, the police have deleted accused 2 to 4 - the petitioners 2 to 4 herein - from the array of accused. Only the first accused continues on the array of accused now.

¶25

The marriage took place on 14.5.2007. Crime in this case is seen registered on 5.1.2008. It is alleged that there was strain in the matrimony. The wife had started separate residence. There was subsequent mediation and there was an agreement that the wife will return to the house of the husband. When she returned to the house of her husband along with her father and

¶26

B.A.No. 992 of 2008

¶27

¶28

relatives, they were allegedly assaulted on 5.12.2007. The had gone to the doctor with complaints of pain and injuries on the same day itself. But the complaint is seen filed long later on 18.12.2007. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the strain in the infant matrimony is prompting the defacto complainant to make reckless and exaggerated allegations. The petitioners do not deserve to suffer the trauma of arrest and detention. They are willing to cooperate with the investigators. Arrest and incarceration of the petitioners would close the doors on any possible harmonious settlement of the matrimonial relationship. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.

¶30

The learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application. The case diary has been placed before me for my perused. I have perused the same. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the first petitioner, subject to appropriate terms and conditions. The apprehension of petitioners 2 to 4 is found to be without any basis and accordingly the petition filed by

¶31

B.A.No. 992 of 2008

¶32

¶33

them can be dismissed accepting the submissions of the learned Prosecutor.

¶34

In the result:

¶35

(1) This application in so far as it relates to petitioners 2 to 4 is dismissed, accepting the submissions of the learned Prosecutor.

¶36

(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the first petitioner.

¶37

(a) The first petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on 29.2.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioner on regular bail on condition that he executes a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

¶38

(b) He shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on 1.3.2008 and 2.3.2008. During this period, the investigators shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps in connection with the investigation. Thereafter he shall appear before the

¶39

B.A.No. 992 of 2008

¶40

¶41

Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so.

¶42

(c) If the first petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 29.2.08 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law.

¶43

(d) If the first petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 29.2.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any surety undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 29.2.2008.

¶44

(R. BASANT) Judge

¶45

Solomon Chacko v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Solomon Chacko 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

Suresh.M.S. Vs State of Kerala

Intaz Munshi Vs State of Kerala

Jeam Khan @ Sabu Vs S.I. of Police & Others

S.Sujathan Vs State of Kerala

Sajimon C.D. Vs State of Kerala

Najeeb v.H.and Another Vs S.I.of Police,Ekm.Town N.Police Stn.&Anr