Allowed

Shybu v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC27 Jun 2018Bail Appl./973/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application of an accused in a case involving Section 498A IPC and cheque-related allegations. The court granted bail subject to a bond and conditions requiring cooperation with the investigation and abstention from interfering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was allowed. The applicant was released on a bond of Rs.40,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including appearance before the IO on Saturdays and non-interference with w

Shybu Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 973 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 259/2017 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED

¶8

SHYBU S/O.SADANANDAN, SRS BHAVAN, RESIDING AT CHATHANPARA THOTTAKKADA P.O., CHIRAYANKEZHU TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT VELLAMBRAM, NADUVATH P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE WANDOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031.

¶13

*3. SOBHA, AGED 28 YEARS, CHOLACKAL HOUSE, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

*** ADDL R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16.3.2018 IN CR.M.A.NO.2482 OF 2018**

¶15

BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

IAP

¶18

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶19

B.A. No.973 of 2018

¶20

Dated this the 27^th day of June, 2018

¶21

ORDER

¶22

1.This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶23

2.The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.259 of 2017 of the Wandoor Police Station, registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 494 of the IPC.

¶24

3.According to the prosecution, the applicant herein married the de facto complainant on 30.8.2013. At the time of marriage, large sums of money as well as gold ornaments were handed over. The amount as well as gold were squandered away allegedly by the applicant. Later, the applicant is alleged to have obtained money from the de facto complainant and towards security handed over certain cheques as well as documents. Later, when she enquired, she realised that the applicant herein had married some other lady and he was residing elsewhere. This led to the lodging of the complaint

¶25

B.A.No.973 of 2018 2

¶26

before the police leading to the registration of the Crime.

¶27

4.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the entire allegations are false. According to the learned counsel, the only allegation is that certain amounts were borrowed by the applicant on the strength of cheques. There is no case that the applicant herein subjected the de facto complainant to physical as well as mental cruelty with a view to coerce her or her relatives to bring more money. The learned counsel submits that the marriage still subsists and his custodial interrogation is uncalled for in a case of this nature.

¶28

5.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have perused the records. I have also considered the submissions advanced.

¶29

6.Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessitous for an effective interrogation.

¶30

7.In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his

¶31

B.A.No.973 of 2018 3

¶32

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶33

(i)The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.M. for a period of one month or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶34

ii)The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶35

iii)The applicant shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶36

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶39

IAP //True Copy\ P.A to Judge

Shybu v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shybu v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Amal Vs State of Kerala

Binil Vs State of Kerala

Arun Vs State of Kerala

Vimal Vs State of Kerala

Biju K.K Vs State of Kerala