Allowed

Suprabashg C.G v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Sept 2014Bail Appl./6626/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving trespass and allegations of assault. The court imposed strict conditions including periodic reporting and passport surrender, citing a precedent regarding passport release during bail proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to bond of Rs. 35,000 with two sureties, fortnightly reporting, passport surrender, and non-interference with investigation.

Suprabashg C.G Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/27TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6626 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO. 1901/2014 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION , THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

SUPRABASHG C.G., AGED 37, S/O.GOPALAN, PARIYARAM POST, CHALAKUDY, TRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

msv/

¶15

V.K.MOHANAN, J

¶16

===========================

¶17

B.A No.6626 of 2014

¶18

============================

¶19

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2014

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner, apprehending arrest in Crime No.1901/2014 of Chalakudy Police Station preffered this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner after having trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, who is the younger sister of the petitioner's wife, on 15.08.2014 at 3 p.m caused bodily injury on her and he had caught hold on the hand of the de facto complainant and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 506(i) and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the above crime connected with a family dispute between the sisters namely the wife of the petitioner and the de facto complainant.

¶25

On the other hand, resisting the bail application, the learned Public

¶26

Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner with criminal intention trespassed into

¶27

B.A No.6626 of 2014

¶28

¶29

the house of the de facto complainant and caught hold on the hand of the de facto complainant, who is a lady.

¶30

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it appears to me that the de facto complainant and the wife of the petitioner are sisters. Considering the nature of the allegation against the petitioner, according to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary and therefore, this petition can be allowed however, subject to stringent conditions.

¶31

In the result, this petition is allowed and accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.1901/2014 of Chalakudy Police Station, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the above crime and on the following other conditions:

¶32

i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in the above crime once in a fortnight on Saturday between 10 a.m and 11 a.m.

¶33

ii) Petitioner is directed to surrender his passport, if any, before the Investigating Officer, at the

¶34

B.A No.6626 of 2014

¶35

¶36

time of executing the bail bond and if he is not a passport holder, file an affidavit to that effect and the Investigating Officer is directed to produce the passport, if he is having the same, or the affidavit as afore mentioned, as the case may be, before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner is free to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for the release of the passport as and when required and in case an application is filed in this regard, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the same on merit and pass appropriate orders, guided by the decision rendered by this Court in Ashok Kumar v State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 712).

¶37

iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and try to influence any witnesses.

¶38

iv) Petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶41

vdv //True Copy// P.A to judge

Suprabashg C.G v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suprabashg C.G 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.K. Abdul Rahiman Sha Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Kumar Vs the S.I of Police

Vinu Vs State of Kerala

Mrs.Ashalatha.Y.K Vs State of Kerala

Sameer Vs State of Kerala

Alosious C Antony @ Kuriachan Vs State of Kerala