Allowed

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Mar 2014Bail Appl./1471/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Sections 498A, 342, 420, 406 and 494 IPC, the High Court granted bail on surrender within ten days, subject to conditions regarding bond execution, interrogation attendance, passport surrender, and prohibition on leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to surrender within ten days; Magistrate to grant bail if satisfied after interrogation, subject to conditions of bond, sureties, interrogation attendance, passport surrender, con

Suresh Vs State of Kerala — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/3RD CHAITHRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1471 of 2014 (D)

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 1241/2013 OF POOYAPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

ACCUSED(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. SURESH AGED 33 YEARS

¶9

S/O SASIDHARAN, MELEVILAKATH VEEDU, KARUVALLIYADU

¶10

VAMANAPURAM P.O., KARETT, KOLLAM.

¶11

2. PRASANNA AGED 55 YEARS W/O SASIDHARAN, MELEVILAKATH VEEDU, KARUVALLIYADU

¶12

VAMANAPURAM P.O., KARETT, KOLLAM.

¶13

3. SALINI AGED 30 YEARS

¶14

W/O UMESH, MELEVILAKATH VEEDU, KARUVALLIYADU

¶15

VAMANAPURAM P.O., KARETT, KOLLAM.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶17

COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶18

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

¶19

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶20

POOYYAPPILLI POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶21

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶22

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JJJ

¶24

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶25

B.A. No. 1471 of 2014 (D)

¶26

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2014

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Petitioners are accused in Crime No.1241/2013 of

¶29

Pooyyappilli Police Station, Kollam District. Offences alleged are under sections 342, 498A, 420, 406 and 494 r/w 34 of IPC. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶30

The 1^st petitioner married the defacto complainant on 20.05.2013. Earlier the marriage between the 1^st petitioner and former wife was divorced as per the judgment passed by the Family Court on 3.9.2011. Hence, the offence under section 494 of IPC will not lie, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits.

¶31

According to the complainant the accused persons subjected the defacto complainant to physical and mental cruelty. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶32

B.A. No. 1471/2014 (D)

¶33

-2-

¶34

the 3^rd accused is in Hyderabad. The 2^nd petitioner is the mother of the 1^st accused. The allegations of cruelty are false, the learned counsel submits.

¶35

Considering all the aspects the following directions are issued:

¶36

The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. After interrogation the accused shall be produced before the learned Magistrate. When applied for bail by the accused, the learned Magistrate will, considering the nature of the case, grant bail to the petitioners but on the following conditions:

¶37

a. The petitioners shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If in case the Magistrate has any doubt about the genuineness or correctness of the tax receipts produced by the

¶38

B.A. No. 1471/2014 (D)

¶39

-3-

¶40

sureties, the learned Magistrate can insist for production of the attested photo copies of the original title deeds of the sureties.

¶41

b. The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and the 1^st petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶42

c. The petitioners shall surrender their original passports before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. If they are not having any valid passport, they should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶43

d. The petitioners will also file an affidavit that they will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that they will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and will not directly or indirectly

¶44

B.A. No. 1471/2014 (D)

¶45

-4-

¶46

make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶47

e. The petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate.

¶48

f. The learned Magistrate will also ensure the identity of the sureties by insisting production of electoral photo identity cards/Driving licence etc.

¶49

Sd/N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶50

//True Copy//

¶51

P.A. to Judge

¶52

jjj

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh 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

Shineesh Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Leela Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahiman Vs State of Kerala

A.Pramod Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala