Allowed

Sajin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2016Bail Appl./6859/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench judgment in a Bail Application where the Court granted anticipatory bail to three accused persons charged with offences under Sections 498A, 379 and 377 IPC amidst allegations of cruelty and theft in a matrimonial dispute.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be released on bail in event of arrest via bond of Rs.30,000/- each with sureties, reporting as required, not committing offences, and not tampering with witnesses.

Sajin 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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/12TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6859 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1183/2016 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1,2,3:

¶8

1. SAJIN,

¶9

AGED 35 YEARS, S/O SHARAFUDEEN, SAJIN MANZIL, KULAMUTTOM P.O. KAVALAYOOR DESOM, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. SHARAFUDEEN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED ABDUL KHADAR, SAJIN MANZIL, KULAMUTTOM P.O. KAVALAYOOR DESOM, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3. LATHEEFA BEEVI, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O SHARAFUDEEN, SAJIN MANZIL, KULAMUTTOM P.O., KAVALAYOOR DESOM, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANKULAM- 682 031.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶19

- - - - B.A. No. 6859 of 2016

¶20

- - - - Dated this the 04^th day of October, 2016

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 1183 of 2016 of Kadakkavoor Police Station. The offences

¶23

alleged are the offences under Sections 498A, 379 and 377 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶24

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated as follows:

¶25

The first accused married the defacto complainant on 17.6.2010 as per the customary rites of the parties. The second and the third petitioners are respectively the father and the mother of the first petitioner. The second petitioner is aged 65 years and the third petitioner is aged 60 years. After the marriage, the petitioners treated the defacto complainant with mental cruelty for the purpose of extracting more money from her house. The petitioners and the other accused also

¶26

B.A. No. 6859 of 2016

¶27

-2-

¶28

committed theft of the ID card, Adhaar card, documents, bank deposits and the car belonging to the defacto complainant.

¶29

The petitioners have filed this application

¶30

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶31

Heard.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed

¶33

the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly submitted that this being a matrimonial dispute, if the petitioners are sent to prison, the chance for reconciliation would be hampered. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, including the relationship between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, I am of the view that this is a fit case where an order under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners will be justified.

¶34

In the result, this application stands allowed and the respondent is directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime

¶35

B.A. No. 6859 of 2016

¶36

-3-

¶37

No. 1183 of 2016 of Kadakkavoor Police Station, on condition of each of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.30,000/- each (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of Kadakkavoor Police Station, before whom the petitioners shall surrender within ten days from today, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:

¶38

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when required by the investigating officer for interrogation.

¶39

b) The petitioners shall not get involved in any offence while on bail.

¶40

c) The petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶41

Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE

¶42

¶43

//True copy//

¶44

P.A. to Judge

Sajin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajin 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

Shahinsad Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala

Francis Vs State of Kerala

Manoj George Vs State of Kerala

Sarockey Nelson Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Firzad Ismail Vs the State of Kerala