Partly allowed

Irishi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2013Bail Appl./8112/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a bail application filed by three accused in a dowry cruelty and abortion case. Bail was rejected for the first accused but granted to the second and third accused subject to monetary bond and specific conditions to ensure availability for interrogation and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected for the first accused; bail granted to the second and third accused on execution of bond with two sureties.

Irishi Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8112 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 2768/2013 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:

¶8

1. IRISHI V.MURALI AGED 23 YEARS S/O.MURALEEDHARAN, IRISHI BHAVAN, VAYAKKAL.P.O. POLIKKODU, KOTTARAKARA.

¶9

2. MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 58 YEARS IRISHI BHAVAN, VAYAKKAL.P.O., POLIKKODU KOTTARAKARA.

¶10

3. VIMALABAI, AGED 55 YEARS W/O.MURALEEDHARAN, IRISHI BHAVAN, VAYAKKAL.P.O. POLIKKODU, KOTTARAKARA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

¶14

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691506

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

dlk

¶18

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J

¶19

B.A.No.8112 of 2013

¶20

Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2013

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioners are accused 1 to 3, in Crime No.2768 of 2013 of the Kottarakara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 313, 498(A) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed this application.

¶23

Petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the first petitioner who is said to have married the defacto complainant on 06-06-2013. It is alleged that the petitioners subjected her to cruelty. It is also alleged that her pregnancy was aborted without her consent.

¶24

Learned counsel submits that even before the filing

¶25

of the complaint, the first petitioner had issued Annexure-1 notice and thereon, the defacto complainant has chosen to prefer a complaint.

¶26

On hearing both sides it appears to me that the allegation regarding aborting of pregnancy is mainly concerning the first petitioner. I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioners 2 and 3 but not to the first petitioner.

¶27

Resultantly, the application is disposed of as under:

¶28

I) The request for pre-arrest bail made by the first

¶29

¶30

B.A.No.8112 of 2013

¶31

petitioner/first accused is rejected. If so advised, he can surrender before the investigating officer. In case he does so, the investigating officer shall, after interrogation is over produced the first petitioner/first accused before the jurisdictional magistrate as early as possible.

¶32

II) It is directed that in case petitioner 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3 are arrested in Crime No.2768 of 2013 of the Kottarakara Police Station, they shall be released by the arresting officer, (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each before the arresting officer and subject to the following conditions:

¶33

i) Petitioners 2 and 3 shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation at all reasonable time and place.

¶34

ii) Petitioners 2 and 3 shall not intimidate/influence the witnesses.

¶35

iii) In case any of the above conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioners 2 and 3 is liable to be cancelled for which the investigating officer may move application before

¶36

B.A.No.8112 of 2013

¶37

¶38

the jurisdictional magistrate (until committal of the case if any,

¶39

and thereafter, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge concerned) as held in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR

¶40

2006 SC 100).

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶43

¶44

/True Copy/

¶45

P.A. to Judge

Irishi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irishi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Afsal N.A Vs State of Kerala

Alex Vs State of Kerala

Shoukkath Vs State of Kerala

Kiran Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Kripal Vs the State of Kerala

Lonakutty Vs State of Kerala