Allowed

Prathyush v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC21 Jun 2016Bail Appl./4440/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed pre-arrest bail to the sole accused in an assault case involving his mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary but imposed conditions including satiary reporting, local restriction, and no contact with material witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with two sureties of ₹30,000 each; conditions include weekly reporting, stay in Punalur District, and no contact with material witnesses.

Prathyush Vs Sub Inspector of Police — 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

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4440 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1048/2016 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/SOLE ACCUSED :

¶8

PRATHYUSH,

¶9

AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.PRIYADARSHI, RESIDING AT 'THEERTHAM', PANANGADU, VALACODE VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE :

¶12

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REMA.R

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------B.A No. 4440 of 2016

¶17

--------------------------------------- Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.1048/2016 of the Punalur Police Station. He seeks pre arrest bail on the apprehension of arrest by the police. The crime involves the offence under Sections 323 and 354 of IPC. The defacto complainant is the petitioner's own mother-in-law.

¶20

The prosecution case is that at about 9.30 am on 1.6.2016 the petitioner assaulted his mother-in-law and sister-inlaw. Being the complaint made by a lady the police immediately registered a case under Section 354 IPC. It is submitted that there is a counter case regarding the very same incident in which the petitioner herein sustained injuries when assaulted by his in-laws. Annexure A2 is the copy of the FIR in Crime No.1047/2016.

¶21

On a perusal of the materials I find that Crime No.1048/2016 and Crime No.1047/2016 are case and counter. It appears that the alleged incident happened in connection with some matrimonial dispute between the petitioner herein and his

¶22

¶23

B.A No. 4440 of 2016

¶24

wife. She has been residing separately for months, and she is now with her mother. The alleged incident happened in her presence. What is revealed by the present complaint is only an instance of assault on the petitioner's mother-in-law and the sister-in-law. A mere assault on a woman will not by itself constitute the offence under Section 354 IPC. In the nature of the allegations and the materials so far collected, I feel that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. Even without such interrogation necessary materials can be collected by the police The genuineness of the allegations and counter allegations will have to be doubted in the above factual situation. However, the petitioner will have to be directed to report before the investigating officer for necessary interrogation, if and when felt necessary.

¶25

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his 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 or the learned Special Judge, as the case may be. Bail is granted on condition that:

¶26

¶27

B.A No. 4440 of 2016

¶28

a) The petitioner shall report before the

¶29

investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Saturdays for a period of two months for necessary interrogation, if required.

¶30

b) The petitioner shall not leave the limits of Punalur Police Station for a period of two months.

¶31

c) The petitioner shall not have any contact with the material witnesses, including his wife, except for the purpose of any settlement of the dispute,

¶32

in case anybody intervened for such a course.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

Prathyush v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prathyush v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Pushpakaran Vs State of Kerala

Aji.T.B Vs the State of Kerala

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Haneeswaran.M.v Vs State of Kerala

Suryalayam Reveendran Vs State of Kerala

Shakthil T.T Vs State of Kerala