Allowed

Praveen A.R v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2016Bail Appl./1152/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed by two accused persons facing charges under Section 498A IPC. The court held that the case did not warrant custodial interrogation and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners released on bail subject to conditions including bond execution and availability for interrogation.

Praveen A.R Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/20TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1152 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 82/2016 OF PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. PRAVEEN A.R., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMANKUTTY, AMARIPADATHU (H), HOUSE NO. 31/134, CHUNKAM, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. LALITHA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O LATE RAMANKUTTY, AMARIPADATHU (H), HOUSE NO. 31/134, CHUNKAM, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SMT.P.DEEPTHI, SRI.SABU JOHN.

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N. SURESH.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶17

¶18

B.A.1152 of 2016

¶19

- - - - Dated 10^th March, 2016

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

1.This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶23

2.The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime No.82 of 2016 of Pazhayannur police station. The said crime has been registered alleging offence punishable under Section 498 (A) of the IPC.

¶24

3.The 1^st petitioner is the son of the 2^nd petitioner. The de facto complainant is the wife of the 1^st petitioner. The allegation is that on 17.1.2006, the petitioners came to the parental home of the de facto complainant and assaulted her.

¶25

4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public

B.A.1152/16

Prosecutor.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the marriage between the 1^st petitioner and the de facto complainant was solemnized on 11.12.2013. A male child has been born to them on 17.1.2015. There are only minor disputes between the parties and the registration of the crime is only for the purpose of settling scores.

¶30

6.The learned Public prosecutor, on instructions, has submitted that no serious allegations are raised. Though the records reveal that the defacto complainant was admitted in the hospital for a day, no serious injuries are noted.

¶31

7.After having considered the rival submissions, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the petitioners and the other circumstances, I am of the considered view

¶32

B.A.1152/16

¶33

¶34

that this is not a fit case wherein custodial

¶35

interrogation is warranted. In the result, I am inclined to allow the petition by imposing appropriate conditions.

¶36

8.In the result, this application is allowed, but

¶37

subject to the following conditions:

¶38

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

¶39

ii). The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶40

iii). The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶41

iv). The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶42

v). The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶43

B.A.1152/16

¶44

¶45

vi). In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional magistrate shall be empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge

¶48

Mrcs/10.3.2016

¶49

//True Copy//

¶50

P.S.To Judge

Praveen A.R v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen A.R 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

Mohammed Rafi Vs State of Kerala

Ajith Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Shinto Vs State of Kerala and Another

K.a.Valsarajan Vs State of Kerala

Sheela Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Radhadevi Vs State of Kerala