Partly allowed

Sunil Kumar T.V v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Sept 2014Bail Appl./6378/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a joint anticipatory bail application filed by a husband and wife accused of offences under Sections 323, 324 and 354 IPC read with Section 34. While dismissing bail for the husband due to specific allegations against him, the court allowed bail for the wife as no overt act was alleged against her.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed for the 1st petitioner; allowed for the 2nd petitioner on executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- with two solvent sureties and conditions regarding cooperation.

Sunil Kumar T.V Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/31ST BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6378 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 697/2014 OF NILESWAR POLICE STATION , KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/IST AND 2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

1. SUNIL KUMAR T.V., AGED 33 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN, PUTHUKKUNNU, KATTIPPAYIL P O KINANUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DIST.

¶9

2. PREETHI K., AGED 33 YEARS W/O.SUNIL KUMAR, PUTHUKKKUNNU, KATTIPPAYIL P O KINANUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DIST.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SRI.RAHUL SASI SMT.NEETHU PREM SRI.ANIL VIJAYAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NILESWARAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DIST-671315.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SMT.R.REMA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ami/

¶17

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶18

B.A.No.6378 of 2014

¶19

Dated this the 22^nd day of September, 2014.

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioners, who are husband and wife, are accused nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.697/14 of Nileswaram Police Station and as they are apprehending arrest in the above crime, they preferred this petition for anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that, connected with a property dispute, at about 11.30 a.m. on 13.8.2014, the petitioners trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant and inflicted injury on the de facto complainant with a stone and thus according to the prosecution, the petitioners/accused have committed the offences punishable under sections 323, 324 and 354 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶24

B.A.No.6378 of 2014

¶25

¶26

the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are implicated in the above crime, since the de facto complainant and her husband are in enemical terms with the petitioners connected with property dispute. On the other hand, while opposing the bail application, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the 1^st petitioner herein, who is the husband of the 2^nd petitioner, by using stone inflicted injury on the de facto complainant, who is a lady and thereby she sustained injury and the Police happened to be registered the above crime, on getting intimation from the Hospital.

¶28

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and the nature of the allegation raised against the petitioners, it appears that no specific overtact is alleged against the 2^nd petitioner/1^st accused, who is the wife of the 1^st petitioner/2^nd accused and considering such allegation, according to me, the custodial interrogation of the 2^nd petitioner is not necessary. Whereas, the overtact

¶29

B.A.No.6378 of 2014

¶30

¶31

specifically alleged against the 1^st petitioner is that, he used stone for inflicting injury on the de facto complainant. So, according to me, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the 1^st petitioner, since investigation is not complete, whereas the 2^nd petitioner's custody is not required for investigation purpose. Hence, bail application with respect to the 1^st petitioner is liable to be dismissed and the application with respect to the 2^nd petitioner can be allowed.

¶32

In the result, this petition stands dismissed as far as the 1^st petitioner is concerned and the bail application with respect to the 2^nd petitioner stands allowed and there will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the 2^nd petitioner, connected with Crime No.697/14 of Nileswaram Police Station, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the above crime and on the following other conditions :

¶33

B.A.No.6378 of 2014

¶34

¶35

The 2^nd petitioner is directed to report before the Investigating Officer in the above Crime as and when required.

¶36

The 2^nd petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and she shall not interfere with the same or attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper the evidence.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.

¶39

ami/

¶40

//True copy//

¶41

P.A.to Judge

Sunil Kumar T.V v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar T.V 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

Jaison Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.K.P.Shyamala Mukundan Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Chittar

Shyju Vs State of Kerala

Beena Raj @ Beenakumari Vs State of Kerala

Sujith T.K. Vs State of Kerala