Allowed

Smitha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jun 2016Bail Appl./2532/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted pre-arrest bail to a daughter and father accused of assaulting an amin and a decree holder during property delivery execution under Sections 146, 323, 324, 332 IPC. Bail was allowed without necessity of custodial interrogation, conditional on reporting duties and remaining within jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail by executing a bond with two sureties for 25,000/- each subject to conditions of reporting and non-leave of jurisdiction.

Smitha Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/11TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2532 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 106/2016 OF KALIYAR POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 2 :

¶8

1. SMITHA AGED 34, W/O. SIBI, NEDUMMARTHUM CHALIL, VANNAPURAM P.O., THODUPUZHA.

¶9

2. JOSEPH

¶10

AGED 67, S/O. CHACKO, NEDUMMARTHUM CHALIL,

¶11

VANNAPURAM P.O., THODUPUZHA.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶13

RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA :

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYAR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REMA R.

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

P.UBAID, J.

¶19

============================ B.A.No.2532 of 2016

¶20

============================ Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2016

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners herein are daughter and father, and

¶23

they seek pre arrest bail on the apprehension of arrest in Crime No.106 of 2016 of the Kaliyar Police Station, registered under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, and 332 IPC on the complaint of an amin deputed from the District Court, Thodupuzha for effecting delivery in execution of a decree. It is alleged in her complaint that when she proceeded to execute the decree and deliver the property, she and the decree holder were assaulted by the judgment debtor and her father.

¶24

This application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that pre arrest bail will obstruct the investigation. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the Case Diary, I find that the amin had not sustained any injury in the alleged incident. The wound

¶25

B.A.No.2532 of 2016 2

¶26

certificate in the name of the decree holder (Joby John) shows that he had sustained a linear abrasion on the back side of head. The wound certificate in the name of the amin (Jaya) shows that no injury was noted by the doctor on examination. Here, it is doubtful whether Section 332 IPC is attracted in this case. What is punishable under Section 332 IPC is voluntary infliction of simple injury on the body of a public servant. It appears that Sections 323 and 324 IPC were incorporated as regards the allegation of infliction of injury on the decree holder. Anyway, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case, and that even without such interrogation necessary materials concerning these petitioners, could be collected by the police. The Case Diary shows that the Investigating Officer has questioned all the material witnesses including the amin, and thus the Investigating Officer has collected the required materials for a prosecution, whether it be under Section 324 IPC, or under Section

¶27

B.A.No.2532 of 2016 3

¶28

332 IPC. However, the petitioners will have to report before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, if felt necessary.

¶29

In the result, this application is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 25,000/-₹ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No.106 of 2016 of the Kaliyar Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶30

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when required by him, and specifically between 10 am. and 11 am on all Saturdays for a period of two months.

¶31

b). The petitioners shall not leave the

¶32

jurisdictional limits of the Kaliyar Police Station for two months.

¶33

c) The petitioners shall not in any manner

¶34

B.A.No.2532 of 2016 4

¶35

influence or intimidate the witnesses and they shall not

¶36

have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Smitha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smitha 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

P.J.Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Deepu Vs State of Kerala

Shalu T. Vs State of Kerala

G.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Salam Vs State of Kerala

R.Renjith Vs State of Kerala