Allowed

Genesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jun 2014Bail Appl./3242/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by two accused persons accused of offences under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 506(1) IPC. The court held that prima facie there was nothing to show the offence under Section 354 IPC was committed, as it involved assault with hands, inclined to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on executing a bond for Rs. 25,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, subject to specific conditions.

Genesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/23RD JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3242 of 2014 (A)

¶6

[CRIME NO. 620/2014 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION]

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1. GENESH KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, KOVOOR, G.K. BHAVAN, KARACKAL, PERINGARA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SANDYA RANI, AGED 25 YEARS, W/O.GENESH KUMAR, KOVOOR, G.K.BHAVAN, KARACKAL, PERINGARA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU.

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, (THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE IN CRIME NO.620/2014 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION) HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Prv.

¶16

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶17

B.A. No. 3242 of 2014

¶18

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2014

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Petitioners are accused in Crime No. 620/2014 of

¶22

Thiruvalla Police Station which has been registered for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 354 and 506(1) read with Section 34 I.P.C.

¶23

The allegation against them is that at about 6.45 p.m. on 30.03.2014, they wrongfully confined the de facto-complainant at her residence and assaulted her and her husband with hands. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the facts of the case do not attract Section 354 I.P.C.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

In the incident alleged by the prosecution, the petitioners assaulted the de facto-complainant who is a woman and her husband. There is nothing to show that they committed the offence under Section 354 I.P.C., prima facie.

¶26

Having regard to these facts, I am inclined to grant their prayer.

¶27

B.A. No. 3242 /2014

¶28

¶29

In the result, this application is allowed.

¶30

The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if they are arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶31

They shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation if they are so required by him in writing.

¶32

They shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.

¶33

They shall not harass the defacto-complainant or her relatives.

¶34

This order is not applicable if the petitioners choose to surrender before the Magistrate concerned and in such case the learned Magistrate may take appropriate action in accordance with the law.

¶35

¶36

sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

P.A. TO JUDGE

Genesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Genesh Kumar 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 V.M. Vs State of Kerala

Aboobacker.C Vs State of Kerala

Abdulla Vs State of Kerala

Noushad V.B. Vs State of Kerala

Hassan Kannu Vs State of Kerala

Ajaykhosh Vs State of Kerala