Allowed

Suraj Soman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Mar 2014Bail Appl./1743/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners accused under multiple IPC sections charges including 498A. It directed surrender within ten days, execution of bond conditions, passport surrender, provisional appearance for interrogation on Mondays, and affidavit of non-interference.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender within ten days, bond execution, appearance for interrogation on Mondays daily, and passport surrender.

Suraj Soman Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/22ND PHALGUNA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1743 of 2014 (C)

¶6

------------------------------------------[CRIME NO. 3620/2013 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT]

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. SURAJ SOMAN, AGED 27 YEARS,

¶9

S/O.T.K.SOMAN, THUNDITHARAYIL HOUSE,

¶10

PERINGALIPURAM THEKKUMMURI, ENNAKAD VILLAGE,

¶11

CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶12

2. SOMAN T.K, AGED 52 YEARS,

¶13

S/O. KANNAN, -DO-

¶14

3. THANKAMANI, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O. SOMAN T.K, -DO-

¶15

4. SUNEESHA, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O. SOMAN T.K, -DO-

¶16

5. SUDHEESH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. SOMAN T.K, -DO-

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.K.JAISHANKAR.

¶18

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶19

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

¶20

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION - 683 542.

¶21

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN.

¶22

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Prv.

¶24

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶25

B.A. No. 1743 of 2014

¶26

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2014

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Petitioners are accused in Crime No.3620/2013 of Perumbavoor Police Station. Offences alleged are under sections 314, 323, 325, 365, 368 and 498A r/w 34 of IPC. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶29

The 1^st petitioner is the husband of the

¶30

complainant. A private complaint was filed on 7.12.2013, based on which the F.I.R. was registered. One incident, as per the petition, took place during the the last week of April, 2013. It is stated that the accused persons confined the complainant in a room and made her to sign on blank papers. It was also stated that the 1^st and 2^nd accused attacked and kicked and caught hold of her neck. It was

¶31

B.A. No.1743/2014

¶32

-2-

¶33

stated that there is allegation that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the accused persons.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all those allegations are not true. So many allegations are made only to strengthen her case. It is further submitted that three crimes were earlier registered against the defacto complainant and her mother under section 420 of IPC and so only to set up a defence, the allegation that signatures were obtained on blank papers is made.

¶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.

¶37

B.A. No.1743/2014

¶38

-3-

¶39

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:

¶40

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 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 between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶42

B.A. No.1743/2014

¶43

-4-

¶44

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.

¶45

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 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.

¶46

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

¶47

B.A. No.1743/2014

¶48

-5-

¶49

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

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶52

//True Copy//

¶53

P.A. to Judge

¶54

jjj

Suraj Soman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Soman 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

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Binukumar Vs State of Kerala

Lalkumar Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Jayan Vs the State of Kerala

Nisanth Vs State of Kerala