Allowed

Subash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Apr 2019Bail Appl./1088/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused under Sections 306 and 498A IPC. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary based on the First Information Report and directed the release of the petitioner after subjecting him to cooperation with the investigating officer and posting bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail after interrogation. Bond of Rs. 75,000/- with two sureties. Must report to IO every Thursday and cooperate with investigation. Bail may be cancelled if conditions violated

Subash Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1088 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 10/2019 OF Sreekrishnapuram Police Station , Palakkad

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SUBASH AGED 34 YEARS

¶9

S/O AYYAPPAN, KARAGATHIL HOUSE, VETTEKKARA POST, KATTAMBAZHIPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.VIBIN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.B.JAYASURYA , SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Bail Appl..No. 1088 of 2019

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. He is the first accused in crime no.10/2019 of Sreekrishnapuram police station in Palakkad district. He and his mother allegedly committed offences punishable under Secs 306 and 498A of IPC.

¶20

Heard Sri.P.V.Vibin, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.Jayasurya, the learned senior public prosecutor.

¶21

A lady by name Greeshma committed suicide by hanging herself. She did it on 8.1.2019. She was the wife of the petitioner and the daughter-in-law of the second accused. The prosecution contends that the accused persons had abetted the victim to commit suicide and had harassed her demanding dowry. Annexe-A1 is the copy of the FI statement. It was given by the brother of Greeshma. It is stated therein that she never had any complaint against her husband and family members. It is also stated that Greeshma was a splenetic and that she might have committed suicide in anger with someone. In view of the FI statement, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail. The recitals in the FI statement cannot be brushed aside. Custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary in the present case. But the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall submit himself for interrogation as and when required by the

¶22

¶23

Bail Appl..No. 1088 of 2019

¶24

investigating officer. I allow the application in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶25

The application is allowed. If arrested in connection with crime no.10/2019 of Sreekrishnapuram police station, the petitioner shall be released on bail, after interrogation, if any, on his executing a bond for Rs 75,000/- (seventy five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. He shall make himself available for interrogation if so required by the investigating officer. The petitioner shall report to the investigating officer between 10 am and 11 am on every Thursday for a period of two months or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence witnesses. Nor shall he destroy or tamper with evidence. The court/magistrate having jurisdiction is hereby empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law if any of the conditions aforementioned is violated. If the petitioner surrenders before the magistrate, this order will cease to have effect and the learned magistrate will pass appropriate orders as if this order has not been passed.

Sd/-

A.M.BABU

JUDGE

SKS/8.4.2019

Subash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash 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

Maheswari K.U., Vs the Station House Officer

Aji Vs State of Kerala

Shafeer P.M. Vs State of Kerla

Martin.a.P Vs State of Kerala

Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar M.K. Vs State of Kerala