Allowed

Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 May 2016Bail Appl./3555/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed bail applications filed by accused persons charged with abetting suicide under Section 306 I.P.C. The court held that the prosecution did not provide sufficient material to attract the offence and custodial interrogation was not necessary.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on Rs. 30,000 each with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions and further reporting requirements.

Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3555 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 284/2016 OF KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :

¶8

PRABHAKARAN

¶9

AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. KOCHUVASU,

¶10

KOCHAYYATH HOUSE, PATHIYOOR KARA,

¶11

KEERIKKADU P.O., KAYAMKULAM.

¶12

¶13

BHOJAMMA

¶14

AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. PRABHAKARAN, KOCHAYYATH HOUSE, PATHIYOOR KARA,

¶15

KEERIKKADU P.O., KAYAMKULAM.

¶16

SHEEJA AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. SAJI PONNAPPAN, PATHILCHIRA HOUSE, PURAKKAD P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR

¶18

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶19

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

¶20

BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.C.RASHEED

¶21

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-05-2016, ALONG WITH BA.3585/2016. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶23

¶24

Bail Application Nos.3555 and 3585 of 2016

¶25

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27^th day of May 2016

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioners are accused in Crime No.284 of 2016 of Kareelakulangara police station registered under Section

¶28

306 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

¶29

The allegation of the prosecution can be briefly stated thus:- On 6.3.2016 in between 11.15 a.m. and 6.45 p.m., Syama, the wife of the fourth accused committed

¶30

suicide by hanging at her residence. It is alleged that the petitioners abetted the de-facto complainant to commit suicide. The petitioners have filed this application under

Section 438 Cr.P.C.

BA 3555&3585/2016

: 2 :

Heard.

¶35

The learned Public Prosecutor has no serious

¶36

objection in allowing these applications.

¶37

It appears from the Case Diary that there is no serious allegation of mental or physical torture against the petitioners. There is a suicide note which would show that her husband is not responsible for her death. However, she attributed responsibility to her sister-in-law and father-inlaw. Her sister-in-law is residing in Maharashtra in connection with her husband's employment. The F.I. Statement given by the father of the deceased would show that the father and the father-in-law of the deceased were not having any strained relationship. In order to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., there must be material to indicate that the accused abetted the commission of

¶38

BA 3555&3585/2016

¶39

: 3 :

¶40

suicide. However, in this case, there is no material, except the alleged suicide note, to show that the petitioners abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Thus, it appears that there is no sufficient material to attract the offence under section 306 I.P.C. against the petitioners. The petitioner in B.A.No.3585 of 2016 is the fourth accused, who is the husband of deceased Syama. The petitioners in B.A. No.3555 of 2016 are the parents-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased. Having gone through the relevant inputs as revealed from the Case Diary, I am of the view that this is not a case where the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for the progress of investigation of the case. In the said circumstances, an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners will be justified in this case.

¶41

BA 3555&3585/2016

¶42

: 4 :

¶43

In the result, these applications stand allowed and the

¶44

respondent is directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.284/2016 of Kareelakulangara police station, on condition of each of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Kareelakungara Police Station, before whom the petitioners shall surrender within ten days (if not arrested in the meantime) and subject to the following further conditions:

¶45

(i) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for one month and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶46

BA 3555&3585/2016

¶47

: 5 :

¶48

(ii) The petitioners shall not intimidate or

¶49

influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶50

I make it clear that I have not made any observation regarding the merits of the case and the observations made

¶51

in this order are only for the purpose of disposing of this

¶52

application.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶55

dl/.27.5..2016

¶56

// True Copy //

¶57

PA to Judge

Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhakaran 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

Siraj Vs State of Kerala

Raju K.T. Vs Babu

T.Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala

P.N.Ponnappan Vs State of Kerala

Firoz Vs State of Kerala

Binu Chacko Vs State of Kerala