Allowed

Sudheesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Aug 2016Bail Appl./5050/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Benches of the Kerala High Court allowed a petition for pre-arrest bail (anticipatory bail) filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court noted insufficient material to establish a proximate nexus between alleged loan transactions and the deceased sister-in-law's subsequent suicide under Section 306 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on ₹50,000 bond with two sureties subject to reporting conditions and prohibition from leaving Anthikad limits.

Sudheesh Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/19TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5050 of 2016 () ------------------------------CRIME NO. 30/2016 OF ANTHIKADPOLICE STATION, TRISSUR DISTRICT

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶7

SUDHEESH,S/O JAYADEVAN, AGED 40 YEARS, PALLITHAZHATH HOUSE, ENGANDIYOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE, ENGANDIYOOR P.O, THRISSUR 680 615

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO

¶9

SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 682 031

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R. REMA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P.UBAID, J.

¶16

============================

¶17

B.A.No.5050 of 2016

¶18

============================ Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under

¶21

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the

¶22

apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.30 of 2016 of the Anthikad Police Station. The crime was initially registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. But, later it was altered to Sections 302 and 306 IPC. The crime relates to the commission of suicide by the petitioner's sister-in-law, Sandhya. Out of some tension or worries, she killed her small daughter and committed suicide on 02.01.2016. Sandhya had lent a huge amount to the petitioner herein. It is alleged that when the petitioner failed to return the amount, Sandhya started worrying, that she would be scolded by her husband, because money was paid by her without the knowledge of the husband. When the uncle of the deceased made a complaint alleging this fact, the police proceeded against the petitioner under Section

¶23

B.A.No.5050 of 2016 2

¶24

306 IPC.

¶25

On a perusal of the entire materials, I find that there is no definite material at present to connect the commission of suicide by Sandhya, with the alleged borrowal transaction. It is true that Sandhya had lent a huge amount to the petitioner, without the knowledge of her husband. Failure on the part of the petitioner to discharge the debt perplexed her, caused much tension in her, and it appears that due to such worries, she committed suicide. As regards abetment of suicide, it is well settled that for such a prosecution, there must be nexus between the alleged act of the accused and the commission of suicide by the victim. Commission of suicide must be the proximate result of the alleged acts of abetment made by the accused. Here, I do not find such a strong situation under Section 306 IPC. Section 302 IPC relates to the murder of the child by Sandhya. As against the petitioner herein, the allegation is only under Section 306 IPC, for which definite materials are not there in the prosecution records. Such materials are yet to be collected by the Investigating Officer. Inspite of

¶26

B.A.No.5050 of 2016 3

¶27

demand, the petitioner did not discharge the debt. This cannot be a reason to commit suicide.

¶28

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 50,000/-₹ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the Court having jurisdiction, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No.30 of 2016 of the Anthikad Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶29

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Mondays for a period of three months.

¶30

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

¶31

c) The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶32

B.A.No.5050 of 2016 4

¶33

d) The petitioner shall not enter the

¶34

Revenue Village where the house of the victim of offence is situated, till the whole investigation process is over.

Sd/-

P.UBAID, JUDGE

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Sudheesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudheesh 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

Ajmal C.K. Vs State of Kerala

Pappinisseri Job @ Unni Vs State of Kerala

Sanu Navas Vs State of Kerala

Sidique.v Vs the State of Kerala

Suresh K.V Vs State of Kerala

Dr. K.K.Sivadas Vs State of Kerala