Allowed

Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Nov 2017Bail Appl./5596/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the petitioner's pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The court found that no serious injury was sustained, making custodial interrogation unnecessary, and ordered reporting to the IO.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with bond and sureties; directed to report to IlO weekly; restricted from leaving Enathu limits and contacting witnesses.

Babu Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/11TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5596 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 888/2017 OF ENATHU POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED.:

¶8

BABU., S/O BHASKARAN , AGED 47 YEARS, IDAYILATHARAYIL, KANNATTUKUNNU, THUVAYOOR SOUTH, KADAMBANADU, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE.:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.682031.

¶12

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ENATHU POLICE STATION, ENATHU , PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN.691526.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAJJU.S.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sdr/-

¶16

P.UBAID, J.

¶17

B.A. No.5596 of 2017

¶18

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd day of November 2017

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.888/2017 of Enathu Police Station. He seeks pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with the said crime registered under Sections 341, 324, 308 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The de facto complainant in this case is the petitioner's legally wedded wife. They have been living separately for three years. The prosecution case is that at about 8.45 p.m. on 10.6.2017, while the complainant was walking along the public road with her friends, the petitioner, who was hiding at the side of the road, caught hold her, assaulted and inflicted injuries on her body with a weapon. The reason for their separation is not known. It appears that the complainant had given some information to the police regarding the involvement of the petitioner in offences under the Kerala Abkari Act, and probably that provoked him to attack her.

¶22

B.A. No.5596 of 2017

¶23

-: 2 :-

¶24

Any way, the discharge summary in the name of the de facto complainant shows that she had not sustained any serious injury in the alleged incident. The doctor noticed a lacerated wound over the right hand, and an abrasion over the right knee. It is doubtful, how Section 308 IPC happened to be incorporated in the FIR by the police. On a perusal of the case diary, I find that the Investigating Officer has collected the required materials for prosecution. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not felt necessary in the above circumstance. It will suffice that the petitioner is directed to report before the Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation.

¶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 40,000/-/-₹ (Rupees Forty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the court below having jurisdiction, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No.888/2017 of Enathu Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

B.A. No.5596 of 2017

¶29

-: 3 :-

¶30

c) The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or they shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise, except for the purpose of settlement of the matrimonial dispute amicably, in case anybody intervened for such a course.

¶31

Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE

¶32

//True copy//

¶33

P.A. To Judge

¶34

Jvt/2.11.2017.

Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu 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

Subash Vs State of Kerala

Nasar Vs State of Kerala

Abdu Vs the State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Srikanth Valasapalli Vs State of Kerala

Rafeek, Vs State of Kerala