Allowed

Ajaykhosh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jun 2014Bail Appl./4222/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court adjudicated a bail application where the petitioners, husband and wife, sought anticipatory bail for alleged abetment. The Court found the case fit under Section 438 Cr.P.C. due to lack of specific evidence against the petitioners and released them on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000 with two solvent sureties each for Rs.25,000.

Ajaykhosh 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 K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

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

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4222 of 2014 (C)

¶6

[CRIME NO. 533/2014 OF MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT]

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 & 5:

¶8

1. AJAYKHOSH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. B.S. VIJAYAKUMAR, 'USHUS', THANNIVILA, BALARAMAPURAM.P.O.,

¶9

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

2. VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED 22 YEARS, W/O. AJAYAKHOSH, OF DO-DO-

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE, SRI.RAHUL SASI.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.

¶14

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION.

¶15

*ADDL. R3 & R4 IMPLEADED:

¶16

3. AMMUKUTTY, AGED 60, D/O. LATE ACHUTHA MENON, “SOPANAM”, SRA.34, NALANCHIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 015.

¶17

4. SREEKUMARI AMMA, AGED 56, D/O. LATE SUBADRAMMA, NEDUNGODUMELE, SATHI VILASOM, KUSHAVARKAL, MOKKOLAKAL.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

*ADDL.R3. & R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13/06/2014 IN CRL.M.A.NO.5506/2014.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SHIBU JOSEPH, ADDL.R3 &R4 BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SRI.SAIJO HASSAN.

¶20

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

¶21

Prv.

¶22

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶23

B.A. No. 4222 of 2014

¶24

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2014

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶27

Petitioners are accused in Crime No. 533/2014 of Mannanthala Police Station. The wife of the first accused was an employee under the second accused. The 3^rd and 5th accused, who are husband and wife, and the 7^th accused also are employees there. Illicit relationship developed between the wife of the first accused and the 7^th accused. On 21.05.2014 the wife of the first accused was found missing. Later, she was found out. She refused to live with the first accused. On 25.05.2014, the first accused after administering poison to his two children and his mother consumed poison with the intent to commit suicide. The two children died. He and the mother survived. The police have registered the case for the offences under Sections 302, 306, 307 and 309 I.P.C.

¶28

The allegation against the petitioners is that they abetted commission of the offences by the first accused. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the materials

¶29

¶30

collected by the police do not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioners.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned counsel appearing for the mother of the first accused and the mother of the 7^th accused who seek themselves to be impleaded in the matter, and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

Before the first accused committed the offences, he had prepared a suicide note, a copy of which available in the case diary. In the suicide note, he has stated that the accused including the petitioners would be responsible for his death as they have ruined his family life. There is no allegation against the petitioners that they abetted commission of any of the offences alleged in the case. It is the disappointment resulted from the illicit relationship of his wife that prompted him to commit the offences, which is evident from his suicide note. It was submitted that on a previous day of the occurrence, the first accused was assaulted by some of the accused including the first petitioner. That has nothing to do with the offences alleged in this case. The materials collected by the police so far do not disclose commission by the petitioners of any of the offences for which the case has been registered.

¶33

I am satisfied that this is a fit case to invoke the

¶34

¶35

jurisdiction of this court under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶36

In the result this application is allowed.

¶37

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.

¶38

They shall appear before the investigating officer if they are so required by him in writing.

¶39

They shall cooperate with the investigation. They shall not make any attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall they intimidate them.

¶40

sd/-

¶41

¶42

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶43

/ /TRUE COPY//

¶44

P.A. TO JUDGE

Ajaykhosh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajaykhosh 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

Genesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Hassan Kannu Vs State of Kerala