Allowed

Aneesh .P.Soman v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jun 2016Bail Appl./2831/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants pre-arrest bail to four petitioners facing charges under Sections 324 and 498A IPC. The High Court found that the complaint arose from matrimonial strain and dishonest allegations regarding dowry and ornaments. Custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary, and bail was granted subject to reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted bail on ₹30,000 surety each, directed to report for interrogation, and first petitioner required to appear 10 AM–11 AM on Tuesdays for two months.

Aneesh .P.Soman Vs the 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 P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/12TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2831 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 338/2016 OF PETTA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 :

¶8

1. ANEESH .P.SOMAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN, SREENILAYAM, PUTHUPARAMBIL, CHEERANCHIRA P.O,

¶9

CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. CHANDANAVALLY, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O.SOMAN, SREENILAYAM,

¶11

PUTHUPARAMBIL, CHEERANCHIRA P.O,

¶12

CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

3. SOMAN P.S, AGED 68 YEARS,

¶14

S/O. SHANKUKRISHNAN, SREENILAYAM, PUTHUPARAMBIL, CHEERANCHIRA P.O, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

4. ASHA P.SOMAN, AGED 30 YEARS,

¶16

D/O.CHANDANAVALLY, SREENILAYAM, PUTHUPARAMBIL, CHEERANCHIRA P.O, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶17

BY ADV. SMT.S.L.SYLAJA

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE :

¶19

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 31.

¶20

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PETTA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 695 001.

¶21

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶22

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Msd.

¶24

P.UBAID, J.

¶25

============================ B.A.No.2831 of 2016

¶26

============================ Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2016

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioners herein seek pre arrest bail on the apprehension of arrest in Crime No.338 of 2016 of the

¶29

Petta Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered under Sections 324 and 498A IPC. They are the husband and the in-laws of the defacto complainant. Her marriage with the first petitioner herein was solemnized on 05.04.2012. She has been residing separately since 27.09.2015. Her complaint is that she had been mentally and physically harassed by her husband and the in-laws by demanding more dowry and ornaments, and that on 27.09.2015 she was assaulted by her husband. On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the Case Diary, I find that

¶30

the complainant's prominent allegation is about misappropriation of ornaments by the husband. The

¶31

B.A.No.2831 of 2016 2

¶32

genuineness of the allegations of matrimonial cruelty is yet to be decided. I find that their matrimony stands strained, and there is reason to believe that the present complaint is the result of the strained matrimony. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is felt not necessary in this case. Even without such interrogation, necessary materials for a prosecution can be well collected by the police in the nature of the facts and circumstances. I feel it appropriate to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioners with a direction to report before the police for interrogation as and when required, if felt necessary.

¶33

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 30,000/-₹ (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, as the case may be, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No.338 of 2016 of the Petta Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶34

B.A.No.2831 of 2016 3

¶35

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required by him, if felt necessary, and the first petitioner shall so report between 10 am. and 11 am on all Tuesdays for a period of two months.

Sd/-

P.UBAID JUDGE

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Aneesh .P.Soman v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh .P.Soman v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Smitha Vs State of Kerala

Salam Vs State of Kerala

Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Vs State of Kerala

Sareena Vs State of Kerala