Allowed

Riyas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Feb 2016Bail Appl./1259/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single accused petitioner sought bail in IPC offences involving trespass and assault within a matrimonial dispute context. Considering investigation progress and family strain, the court granted bail imposing strict conditions regarding sureties, appearance before investigation officer, and prohibition from entering the complainant's residence and district.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to execution of bond with sureties, appearance before investigation officer, and strict conditions including no entry into the Sessions Division limits and the complainant's house

Riyas Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/30TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1259 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 170/2016 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

RIYAS, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. ABDHUL KHADER, PUTHIYAVEETTIL(RIYAS MANZIL) KAITHAKKAL BHAGOM, THALIKKULAM KARA, THALIKKULAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶10

RESPONDENT :

¶11

--------------------

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. T.Y. LALIZA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶17

B.A.No.1259 of 2016

¶18

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.170/2016 of Palarivattom Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 452, 323, 324 and 308 of IPC.

¶21

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 03.02.2016 at about 10.30 p.m., the petitioner trespassed into house of the de facto complainant, armed with an iron rod and attacked him. When the daughter of the de facto complainant intervened, she was also assaulted. On the basis of the complaint laid, the petitioner herein was arrested on 05.02.2016 and crime was registered. He seeks bail.

¶22

The de facto complainant sought an impleadment and has placed on record several material to

¶23

show that the relationship between the parties is so strained and the de facto complainant maintains a strong apprehension regarding threat to life and liberty of himself, his family members including the children. It is

¶24

B.A.No.1259 of 2016

¶25

¶26

seen from the record that the petitioner herein had married the daughter of the de facto complainant on 27.07.2008 and a child was born out of the matrimonial relationship. The matrimonial relationship got strained thereafter due to the alleged bad behaviour of the petitioner herein. On the other hand, the petitioner made allegations against the wife, the contention of the petitioner herein is that he had pronounced talak evidenced by Annexure -R2(g).

¶27

According to the petitioner, on the date of incident he had rushed to the flat of the de facto complainant on getting an information that his daughter was ill. Though this contention is set up, prima facie, I am not inclined to accept since, the time of entry, the strained relation between the parties, the manner in which he entered into the house and the subsequent conduct also do not justify his contention.

¶28

Having regard to the fact that the investigation has substantially progressed and the further

¶29

fact that the dispute arose out a matrimonial discord, I

¶30

¶31

B.A.No.1259 of 2016

¶32

am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner herein. However having regard to the strong apprehension raised by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant about the threat to the life of the members of the family, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following strict conditions:

¶33

(a) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) with

¶34

two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶35

(b) He shall appear before the Investigation Officer on all Mondays and Saturdays between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of his release.

¶36

(c ) Except for the compliance of the above condition or for appearance in a court of law wherein his appearance is mandatorily required, he shall not enter the limits of Sessions Division Ernakulam, without express permission of the

¶37

court wherein this matter is pending. This will impliedly modify the order of the learned Magistrate in CMP NO.340/2015 dated

¶38

B.A.No.1259 of 2016

¶39

¶40

08.12.2015, regarding the direction that he shall

¶41

not leave the district of Ernakulam.

¶42

(c) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the

¶43

de facto complainant and the witnesses nor shall he interfere in the process of investigation.

¶44

(d) He shall not get involved in any other identical offences.

¶45

(e) The petitioner shall not be enter into the house wherein the de facto complainant is residing with family or interfere in their peaceful life.

¶46

The bail application is allowed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶49

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

P.A. TO JUDGE

Riyas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyas 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

Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Prabhukesh @ Kuttan Vs State of Kerala

Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Vipin M. Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Reghunatha Pillai Vs State of Kerala