Allowed

Manoj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Apr 2019Bail Appl./1080/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application No. 1080 of 2019, the Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused husband and mother-in-law accused of offences including Section 354 IPC, considering the presence of pending matrimonial and criminal disputes between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail subject to executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each and complying with reporting conditions.

Manoj Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1080 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 88/2019 OF Nooranadu Police Station , Alappuzha

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 MANOJ

¶9

AGED 25 YEARS S/O.LATE OMANAKUTTAN, PARAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, THAMARAKULAM, NOORNADU, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

2 SHOBHANA AGED 50 YEARS W/O.LATE OMANA KUTTAN, PARAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, THAMARAKULAM, NOORNADU, ALAPPUZHA.

¶11

BY ADVS. R SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, NOORNADU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI. B.JAYASURYA-SR.PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Bail Appl..No. 1080 of 2019

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Bail is sought. It is sought under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. Petitioners are the accused in crime no.88/2019 of Noornadu police station in Alappuzha district. The offences alleged against them are those punishable under Secs 323, 354, 427 and 451 of IPC read with IPC 34.

¶21

Prosecution case goes as follows: Petitioners 1 and 2 are respectively the husband and mother-in-law of the daughter of the first informant. There has been persistent demand for dowry by the petitioners. They and the first informant were on unfriendly terms. At 11 a.m on 18.1.2019 the petitioners committed housetrespass into the house of the first informant. The first petitioner made an attempt to attack the first informant with an iron rod which she could evade. The second petitioner caught hold of the hair of the first informant and kicked on her chest. The sister of the first informant was also attacked by the petitioners by beating. The first petitioner tore the night gown of the first informant.

¶22

Heard Smt.A.Salini Lal, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.B.Jayasurya, the learned senior pubic prosecutor.

¶23

Of different offences alleged against the petitioners, the only one which is non-bailable is the one punishable under Sec.354 of IPC. The allegation is that the first petitioner tore the night gown of the first informant. Admittedly there has been matrimonial disputes between the man and the wife. Admittedly cases are

¶24

¶25

Bail Appl..No. 1080 of 2019

¶26

pending between them in the family court. Criminal cases are also pending against one on the complaint of the other and vice versa. Annexe-A3 is a copy of the FIR registered on receipt of the FI statement given by the second petitioner. The accused therein is the husband of the first informant herein. Annexe-A3 FIR was earlier in point of time. Considering all these aspects, particularly the matrimonial disputes between the spouses, I am of the opinion that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail. Detention of them does not appear to be necessary for an effective investigation of the case. I allow the application.

¶27

The application is allowed. If arrested in connection with crime no.88/2019 of Noornadu police station, the petitioners shall be released on bail, after interrogation, on each of them executing a bond for Rs 50,000/- (fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. They shall make themselves available for interrogation if so required by the investigating officer. They shall report to the investigating officer between 10 am and 11 am on every Tuesday for a period of two months or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. The petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence witnesses. Nor shall they destroy or tamper with evidence. The magistrate having jurisdiction is hereby empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law if any of the conditions aforementioned is violated. If the petitioners surrender before the magistrate, this

¶28

¶29

Bail Appl..No. 1080 of 2019

¶30

order will cease to have any effect and the learned magistrate will

¶31

pass appropriate orders as if this order has not been passed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

A.M.BABU

¶34

Sks/3.4.2019 JUDGE

Manoj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Vishnu P.R Vs State of Kerala

S. Prabhu Vs State of Kerala

Arun Thadathil Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Subhash, Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Raj Vs State of Kerala