Allowed

Santhakumar S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Sept 2016Bail Appl./6577/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC regarding allegations under Sections 498A and 323 IPC, the High Court of Kerala held that interrogation in custody was unnecessary. The petition was allowed and the first petitioner released on bond with conditions to report weekly and refrain from contacting the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with bond and two sureties for R.40,000 each, conditioned to report weekly and restrict contact with complainant.

Santhakumar S. Vs 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

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/1ST ASWINA, 1938 Bail Appl..No. 6577 of 2016 () -------------------------------

¶5

CRIME NO. 1629/2016 OF POOYAPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶7

1. SANTHAKUMAR S. AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SUNDARANGAN, PAINGAYIL VEEDU, CHEPPARA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691520.

¶8

2. SUNDARANGAN AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. NANAU, PAINGAYIL VEEDU, CHEPPARA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691520.

¶9

3. OMANA AGED 62, W/O. SUNDARANGAN, PAINGAYIL VEEDU, CHEPPARA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691520. 4. NANDAKUMAR AGED 34, S/O. SUNDARANGAN, PAINGAYIL VEEDU, CHEPPARA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691520. 5. SUNILA S. AGED 32, D/O. OMANA, MANU BHAVAN, VAZHANGODE, PUNNALA P.O., PUNALUR-689696.

¶10

6. DEEPU AGED 36, S/O. GOPI, MANU BHAVAN, VAZHANGODE, PUNNALA P.O., PUNALUR-689696.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & ANOTHER:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. (CRIME NO. 1629 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM).

¶14

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, POOYAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691537.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITHMURALI

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

P.UBAID, J.

¶19

- - - - B.A.No. 6577 of 2016

¶20

- - - - Dated this the 23^rd day of September, 2016

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners herein seek pre-arrest bail under

¶23

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No. 1629 of 2016 of the Pooyappally Police Station, registered under Sections 498A and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. they

¶24

The defacto complainant in this case is the wife of the first petitioner. She was married by him in July, 2006, and she has been residing separately for a few months. Her grievance is that she had been mentally and physically harassed by her husband and the in-laws, including the parents-in-law. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law, the 4^th petitioner is the brother-in-law, 5^th petitioner is the sister-in-law and the 6^th petitioner is the husband of the 5^th petitioner. It appears that the lady has

¶25

B.A.No. 6577 of 2016

¶26

-2-

¶27

arraigned all the inmates of the matrimonial home as accused in the complaint alleging matrimonial cruelty. Anyway, there is police report that the petitioners 2 to 6 stand deleted from the party array, and now, the first petitioner is the sole accused in the crime.

¶28

On a perusal of the complaint, I find that the present complaint is the result of the matrimonial dispute between the parties. The genuineness of the allegation of cruelty is a matter for decision on trial. Interrogation of the petitioner in custody is not felt necessary in the above circumstances. It will suffice that the petitioner is directed to report before the Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation.

¶29

In the result, this petition for pre-arrest bail is allowed. The first petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for ₹ 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate

¶30

B.A.No. 6577 of 2016

¶31

-3-

¶32

having jurisdiction, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 1629 of 2016 of the Pooyappally Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶33

a) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Thursdays for a period of two months.

¶34

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

¶35

c) The petitioners shall not have any contact with the defacto complainant directly or over telephone or otherwise, except for the purpose of settlement of the dispute, in case anybody intervened for such a course.

Sd/- P.UBAID

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Santhakumar S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhakumar S. 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

Rajeeb K.K Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

C.M.Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Sidhikul Akbar Vs State of Kerala

Udayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Lathika Vs State of Kerala

Fazil Vs State of Kerala