Allowed

Dileep.P.J v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Nov 2011Bail Appl./8262/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, on 24.11.2011, granted anticipatory bail to four accused persons in a case involving offences under Sections 498-A, 406, and 323 r/w 34 IPC. The court imposed conditions for periodic reporting and cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners on bond of `10,000/- each with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions of reporting and cooperation with investigation.

Dileep.P.J Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8262 of 2011()

¶6

¶7

Crime No.1655 of 2011 of Mulavukad Police Station, Ernakulam.

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶9

¶10

DILEEP.P.J,

¶11

PUTHUVALSTHALATH HOUSE, PANAMBUKAD, VALLARPADAM, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

JAYA RAJAN,

¶13

PUTHUVALSTHALATH HOUSE, PANAMBUKAD, VALLARPADAM, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

AMBIKA JAYARAJ, PUTHUVALSTHALATH HOUSE, PANAMBUKAD, VALLARPADAM, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

DEEPA.P.J, PUTHUVALSTHALATH HOUSE, PANAMBUKAD, VALLARPADAM, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

BY ADV. SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI

¶17

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶18

¶19

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶20

BY P.P.SRI.R.RANJITH

¶21

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

K.T.SANKARAN, J .

¶23

--------------------------------B.A.No . 8262 OF 2011

¶24

Dated this the 24^th day of November , 2011

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section

¶27

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioners are

¶28

accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.1655 of 2011 of Mulavukad Police Station, Ernakulam.

¶29

The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 14^th November, 2011, the following order was passed:

¶31

“2. According to the petitioners, they are accused Nos.1 to 4. It is stated that the first petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. Petitioners 2 to 4 are respectively the father, mother and sister of the first accused.

¶32

B.A.No. 8262 OF 2011 2

¶33

3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that only petitioners 1 and 3 are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the crime. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the second petitioner Jaya Rajan and the fourth petitioner Deepa are not accused in the case.

¶34

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the first petitioner should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 19^th and 20^th November, 2011.

¶36

6. Post on 24.11.2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.1655 of 2011 of Mulavukad Police Station, till 26.11.2011.

¶37

The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.”

¶38

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶39

as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 14^th November, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioners.

¶40

B.A.No. 8262 OF 2011 3

¶41

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 14^th November, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶42

a) The 1^st petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶43

b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶44

c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

¶45

d) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.

¶46

e) The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation.

¶47

B.A.No. 8262 OF 2011 4

¶48

f) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶49

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶50

above.

¶51

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE .

¶52

cms

Dileep.P.J v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep.P.J 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

Maneesh Vs State of Kerala

Sarath Mohan & Others Vs the State of Kerala

Prince.v.P Vs State of Kerala

Bijesh @ Biju Vs State of Kerala

Krishnankutty Vs State of Kerala

Moosa P.A. and Another Vs State and Another