Partly allowed

Asokan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Aug 2012Bail Appl./5742/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 498A IPC, the court allowed bail to four accused (age 72 above, four sisters and other family members) but rejected it for the first accused husband. The third accused and an alleged victim's daughter were not detained as no specific imputation of assault against them existed.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed to petitioners 2 to 5 on bond of Rs 10,000 each; bail declined to petitioner 1.

Asokan Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/19TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5742 of 2012 ()

¶6

(IN CRIME NO. 961/2012 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM)

¶7

ACCUSED(S):

¶8

1. ASOKAN PILLAI (A1), AGED 40 YEARS S/O.SIVASANKARA PILLAI, VARUVILA VEEDU NADAKKAL KALLUVATHUKKAL KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶9

2. SIVASANKARA PILLAI(A2), AGED 72 YEARS

¶10

S/O.PARAMESWARA KURUP, VARUVILA VEEDU NADAKKAL KALLUVATHUKKAL KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶11

3. BHARGAVI AMMA (A3), AGED 68 YEARS

¶12

W/O.SIVASANKARA PILLAI, VARUVILA VEEDU NADAKKAL

¶13

KALLUVATHUKKAL KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶14

4. AMBIKA KUMARI(A4), AGED 37 YEARS W/O.ASHOK KUMAR, VARUVILA VEEDU NADAKKAL KALLUVATHUKKAL NOW RESIDING AT LEELA BHAVAN KOTTUKKAL P.O ANCHAL KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶15

5. AJITHA KUMARI(A5), AGED 34 YEARS W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN VARUVILA VEEDU NADAKKAL KALLUVATHUKKAL NOW RESIDING AT UNNI SADANAM IRUMPANANGAD P.O, EZHUKONE KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶16

BY ADVS.SRI.BINU GEORGE SMT.HEMALATHA

¶17

COMPLAINANT(S):

¶18

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

¶19

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

dlk

¶22

S.S.SATHEESA CHANDRAN, J

¶23

B.A. NO.5742 of 2012

¶24

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2012

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Petitioners are the accused from Crime No.961 of 2012 of Parippally Police Station, Kollam, registered for the offence under Section 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The above crime has been registered, it is submitted on a complaint given by the wife of the first petitioner, the other petitioners are the parents and two sisters of the first petitioner according to the counsel. It is further submitted that previous day before the registration of the crime another crime had been registered against the father and brother of the first petitioner's wife alleging that they have criminally trespassed upon the residential building occupied by the second and third petitioners and assaulted the second petitioner. As a counter blast to that the crime for registered Crime No.953 of 2012 was registered at the same station for offence punishable under Sections 324,452 read

¶27

B.A. NO.5742 of 2012

¶28

¶29

with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the aforesaid case, crime No.961 of 2012 has been registered against the petitioners on baseless allegations, is the submission of the counsel. The learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions reports that the investigation of the crime is now in progress. It is further submitted that the defacto complainant in the crime, the wife of the first petitioner had been assaulted by the first petitioner and his father and consequent to the injury sustained she was lost his life. As against the first and second petitioners their arrest and custodial interrogation in connection with the investigation in the crime is essential is the submission of the Public Prosecutor.

¶30

Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented, so far as the petitioners 3 to 5 are concerned against to no specific imputation of assault and the defacto complainant has not been made. I find their arrest and detention is not called for. Considering the age of the

¶31

B.A. NO.5742 of 2012

¶32

¶33

second petitioner also who is stated to be 72 years. I find his arrest in connection with the crime can be avoided of. So much so, pre arrest bail canvassed of is allowed to petitioners 2 to 5 but not to the first petitioner, the husband of the defacto complainant who is alleged to have assaulted and caused injuries to his wife resulted in her hospitalisation. In the event of the arrest petitioners 2 to 5 they shall be released by the Investigating Officer on executing a bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each. Petitioners 2 to 5 shall co-operate with the investigation of the crime for its smooth completion.

¶34

Pre arrest bail canvassed by the petitioners declined. petition is disposed as above.

¶35

S.S.SATHEESA CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶36

dlk

¶37

B.A. NO.5742 of 2012

¶38

Asokan Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asokan Pillai 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

Dr.N.Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Athira Vs the State of Kerala

Kanakan Vs State of Kerala

Arayilakath Kunhikandi Maharoof Vs Cheriya Puthalath Abdul Azeez

Nasser Vs B.K.Muneer

M.K.Asafali Vs Sub Inspector of Police