Allowed

Ashish Philip v. Sub Inspector of Police, Mukkom Police Station

Kerala HC6 Oct 2016Bail Appl./7038/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed anticipatory bail application of accused in a criminal case involving matrimonial disputes and offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506, 308, 494 and 294(b) IPC, directing release on bond execution with specific reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail after executing a bond for Rs. 30,000/- with two sureties and complying with reporting conditions.

Ashish Philip Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Mukkom Police Station — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/14TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7038 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 578/2016 OF MUKKOM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

ASHISH PHILIP, S/O. PHILIPPOSE, AGED 30 YEARS, NELLIVILA PUTHENVEEDU HOUSE, KALANADIKOLLY P.O., PULPALLY VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶11

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUKKOM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 101.

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU. S.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

¶18

B.A. No. 7038 of 2016

¶19

¶20

Dated this the 06^th day of October, 2016

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 578

¶23

of 2016 of Mukkom Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506, 308 and 498 read with Section 294(b) of IPC.

¶24

The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

It appears from the case diary that the

¶27

defacto complainant is the wife of the petitioner. Their marriage was on 5.7.2014. She was studying for the 2^nd year B.Tech course during the time of marriage and presently she is studying for the 4^th year. The petitioner did not want the defacto complainant to continue her studies. That apart, the defacto complainant could not

¶28

B.A. No. 7038 of 2016

¶29

-2-

¶30

tolerate the sexual perversion of the petitioner. Therefore, their relationship became strained. The petitioner is aged 30 years and the defacto complainant is aged 23 years. Having gone through the case diary, it appears that the offence under Section 498 of I.P.C. is not attracted in this case, as the defacto complainant is the wife of the petitioner. The dispute involved in this case is matrimonial dispute. Therefore, if the petitioner is sent to jail, the chance for reconciliation will be hampered. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to allow this application.

¶31

In the result, this bail application stands allowed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.578 of 2016 of Mukkam Police Station, on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for 30,000/- (Rupees₹ Thirty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the first respondent,

¶32

B.A. No. 7038 of 2016

¶33

-3-

¶34

before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days from today, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:

¶35

1. The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer on every Monday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for three months and thereafter, as and when required by the investigating officer for interrogation.

¶36

1. The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

¶39

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE

¶40

//True copy//

¶41

P.A. to Judge

Ashish Philip v. Sub Inspector of Police, Mukkom Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Philip v. Sub Inspector of Police, Mukkom Police Station

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

G.Sudheerbabu Vs State of Kerala

C K Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sreelal Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Iqbal Vs State of Kerala

Rajendran Unnithan Vs State

Biju John Vs State of Kerala