Allowed

Satheesan @ Satheesan Menon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Sept 2015Bail Appl./5071/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to the petitioner, sole accused in a dowry-related offense. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and allowed release upon execution of a bond with sureties before the trial court, emphasizing no breach of conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, execute a bond with sureties, and appear in court without breach.

Satheesan @ Satheesan Menon Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/12TH BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5071 of 2015 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 855/2015 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, TRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED :

¶8

SATHEESAN @ SATHEESAN MENON S/O. VENGASSERY SARADHAMMA, AGED 68 YEARS, VENGASSERY HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM, THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.ARUN B.VARGHESE SRI.JAYKAR K.S. SMT.M.B.DHANYA BABU

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT :

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶17

B.A. No.5071 of 2015

¶18

Dated this the 3^rd day of September, 2015

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.855 of 2015 of Thrissur East Police Station registered under Sections 403, 406, 498A and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant. Their marriage was on 16.06.1972. It is alleged that the petitioner treated the defacto complainant cruelly and appropriated ornaments belonging to her.

¶22

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

¶23

Considering the nature of allegations, I am of the view that no custodial interrogation is required in this case. Further, the learned Prosecutor submitted that the final report has already been filed in this matter. Therefore, the following order:

¶24

i. Petitioner shall appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur and execute a bond for `25,000/- (Rupees twentyfive thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate within a period of one month. In that event, he shall be released on bail in Crime No.855 of 2015 of Thrissur

BA No.5071/2015

East Police Station.

ii. Petitioner shall appear before the trial court without any

¶29

breach.

¶30

iii. He shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses.

¶31

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law without referring the matter to this Court.

¶32

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶33

cks

Satheesan @ Satheesan Menon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheesan @ Satheesan Menon 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

V.K.Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Sulaiman @ Ustad Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Shino Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Kerala

P.K. Thomas Vs Cbcid, Kozhikode