Partly allowed

Shiju.a.P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 May 2019Bail Appl./1700/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted interim bail to the sole accused in a domestic violence case involving assault and trespass. The court directed immediate interrogation by the Investigating Officer and imposed strict conditions including a stay from approaching the complainant and cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail granted subject to interrogation by IO, bond of Rs. 40,000, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting approach to complainant and tampering.

Shiju.a.P. 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1700 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 296/2019 of DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE DATED 27-02-2019

¶7

CRIME NO. 49/2019 OF Kakkur Police Station , Kozhikode

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

SHIJU.A.P. AGED 39 YEARS S/O.SUDHAKARAN, ANDIYAPARAMBATH HGOUSE, PAVANDOOR,M KAKKUR POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673613.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT-STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (INSTRUCTIONS THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE, KAKKUR POLICE STATION, KAKKUR POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673613).

¶13

*ADDL.R2SHIJI T., 38 YEARS OLD, VIPANCHIKA, CHAMAMPUNATHIL, KUMARASWAMI, CHELANNUR, KOZHIKODE 673 616

¶14

*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.05.2019 IN CRMA NO.1/2019

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

B.A.No.1700 of 2019

¶19

¶20

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶21

===========================

¶22

B.A.No.1700 of 2019

¶23

===========================

¶24

Dated this the 28^th day of May, 2019

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.49/2019 of Kakkur Police Station which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 452, 341, 324 and 506 of the IPC on the basis of the FIS/complaint of the lady defacto complainant who happened to be his wife.

¶27

The gist of the prosecution case is that in short, in relation to this crime is that on 27.01.2019 at about 6.45 a.m., the petitioner/accused had trespassed into her house and wrongfully restrained her and hit at her head with stone and inflicted injuries upon her and also threatened to do away with her and the accused committed aforementioned offences.

¶28

The petitioner would point out that he is totally innocent of the charges. The plea for anticipatory bail has been opposed by the lady defacto complainant. The petitioner pointed out that various matrimonial disputes/proceedings were pending between the parties for quite some time. That M.C.No.55/2016 (Annexure-A) herein was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode by the wife under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act claiming compensation and for grant of monthly maintenance. The matter was settled in mediation as per

¶29

B.A.No.1700 of 2019

¶30

¶31

Annexure-B proceedings dated 24.04.2017 and thereafter the spouses were living together. Again disputes arose and they were separated. The petitioner had filed Annexure-C divorce petition before the Family Court concerned in November, 2017. It appears that both of them started living together again.

¶32

According to the petitioner, he got reliable information that the lady had developed certain relationship with certain other person. It constrained him to file Annexure-D petition dated 14.06.2018 before the police authorities. That the police authorities had called both spouses to the Police Station which led to Annexure-E whereby both sides agreed to live harmoniously. That after Annexure-E, spouses had again lived together. Thereafter, relationship was again strained and they started living separately. The petitioner had again set in motion the conduct of the further proceedings in Annexure-C divorce application before the Family Court. The petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations in the instant case have been falsely foisted as against him, the lady defacto complainant would point out that the incidents narrated in the crime are the correct state of affairs. The petitioner, the lady defacto complainant and the learned Prosecutor has been heard by this Court.

¶33

The learned Prosecutor has made available the accident cum wound certificate which would show that the lady defacto complainant has reported before the Doctor that she has suffered head injury on the day in

¶34

B.A.No.1700 of 2019

¶35

¶36

question and that Doctor has found her conscious and oriented and noted lacerated wound of 2x0.5x0.5 cm on the parietal area and further that there are no signs of any sexual assault and no other visible injuries etc.

¶37

After hearing all the parties concerned and after evaluating

¶38

facts and circumstances of this case, the following directions and orders are passed :-

¶39

(i) The petitioner shall personally appear before the Investigating Officer in relation to Crime No.49/2019 of Kakkur Police Station and to subject himself for interrogation process at 10 a.m. on any day on or before 10.06.2019.

¶40

(ii) Petitioner will fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the above interrogation process. After completing the above interrogation process, in case the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioner in relation to the abovesaid crime, then he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the likesum each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶41

However, in that eventuality, the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions:

¶42

(a) Petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶43

(b) Petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

¶44

(c) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection.

¶45

(d) Petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

¶46

B.A.No.1700 of 2019

¶47

¶48

(e) Petitioner shall not go anywhere near the residence of the lady

¶49

defacto complainant until the conclusion of the trial.

¶50

(f) The investigating officer in this crime will depute a police constable preferably a lady constable to the residence/workplace of the lady defacto complainant and ascertain from her as to whether the petitioner, has in any manner caused any threat or intimidation to her. If anything adverse is brought to the notice of the investigating officer, he will take strict action in that regard.

¶51

(iii) If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.

¶52

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶55

SKS

Shiju.a.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiju.a.P. 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

Sujith Krishna, Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Mathew George Vs Sarah Sapna Mathew

Divin Devassy, Vs State of Kerala

Sachu.P.Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Abid.M.P,S/O. Abdu Rahman, Mullakettil Puthiya Purayil House, Ettikulam, Vs State of Kerala

Rasha Shereef, Vs State of Kerala