Dismissed

Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Feb 2020Bail Appl./685/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the bail application without an unconditional grant. It directed the petitioner to undergo interrogation within days. Bail was offered only after interrogation if arrest occurs, subject to strict conditions including mandatory appearances every alternate Saturday. The Court also directed the prosecution to suggest mediation at the District Mediation Centre for the pending matri

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear for interrogation by March 8, 2020; bail offered post-interrogation if arrested upon executing bond on conditions including bi-weekly police appearances; mediation recomm

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.685 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.2031/2019 OF Mannar Police Station , Alappuzha

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SUNIL KUMAR AGED 33 YEARS S/O.P.S.RAJAN, PUTHEN VEEDU, NEW STREET, KOLLAMKODE, PALAKKAD, PIN- 678701.

¶9

BY ADVS. SMT.D.SARITHA SMT.M.K.RAJITHA

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-692031.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶16

================== B.A.No. 685 of 2020

¶17

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

¶18

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2020

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner has been arrayed as the 1^st accused among the

¶21

five accused in the instant Crime No. 2031/2019 of Mannar Police Station, Alappuzha District, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sec. 420, 406, 464, 498A and 34 of the I.P.C. pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Magistrate to register crime and conduct investigation on the allegations raised in Anx. R-1 (b) private criminal complaint filed by the lady defacto complainant as Crl.M.P.No.4042/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chengannur. The petitioner (A-1) is the husband of the lady defacto complainant. Accused 2 and 3 in the said crime are the father and, mother of the petitioner. A-4 is the mother of accused No.5 and A-5 is allegedly to be the lover of the petitioner.

¶22

The gist of the allegations in the abovesaid criminal complaint, which led to the registration of the instant crime is to the effect that the lady defacto complainant had married to the petitioner herein on 19.9.2012 and thereafter, the petitioner and the other accused persons have consistently mentally and physically harassed and have misappropriated gold ornaments and money and that the

¶23

B.A.No.685/20 - : 3 :-

¶24

petitioner had frequently physically assaulted her, etc.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that abovesaid allegations are false and baseless and that due to marital discord between the spouses, the petitioner was constrained to file MOP No.139/2018 before the Family Court, Palakkad to annul the marriage of the petitioner with the lady defacto complainant and immediately after the petitioner filed the said case, the lady defacto complainant has filed cases after cases against the petitioner before the Family Court, Mavelikkara, as well as the present private criminal complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Chengannur. It is further pointed out that MOP No.304/2018 earlier filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, Palakkad, now stands transferred to the Family Court, Mavelikkara, pursuant to the directions issued in the transfer petition filed by the lady defacto complainant before this Court.

¶26

After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be really necessary and imperative for the smooth and effective conduct of the investigation of the crime. But the learned Prosecutor has pointed out

¶27

B.A.No.685/20 - : 4 :-

¶28

that the petitioner has not co-operated with the investigation so far and that he should immediately appear before the investigating officer for interrogation purposes.

¶29

Accordingly the following directions are orders are

¶30

passed:

¶31

(1) The petitioner shall personally appear before the IO concerned for interrogation in the instant crime No.2031/2019 of Mannar Police Station for interrogation purposes without any further delay, at any rate, by 9.a.m. on any day on or before 08.03.2020 or any such time as may be duly extended by the IO.

¶32

(2) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the above investigation process.

¶33

(3) After the interrogation process is over, in case the IO arrests the petitioner in connection with the instant case, then the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs. 40,000/- (rupees forty thousand only) and on his furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum each, both to the satisfaction of the IO concerned.

¶34

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

¶35

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer at any rate, between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m on all second and fourth Saturdays of every month for a period of four months and thereafter as and when directed by the IO.

¶36

(ii) The petitioner shall not influence witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

¶37

(iii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶38

If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the

¶39

petitioner, then the jurisdictional court concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider the plea for cancellation of the bail at the

¶40

B.A.No.685/20 - : 5 :-

¶41

appropriate time.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner is sincerely interested to settle all the outstanding issues with his wife and that the parties may be directed to ensure that mediatory efforts are taken in the District Mediation Centre, Mavelikkara. In this regard, the petitioner may file appropriate application before the Family Court, Mavelikkara, where the matrimonial litigative proceedings between the petitioner and his wife are pending and the Family Court may direct the parties to seek mediatory efforts through District Mediation Centre, Mavelikkara and in that regard, if both parties are willing, the matter in relation to the instant crime No.2031/2019 of Mannar Police Station, may also be referred to the same mediator. The mediation centre may take earnest efforts to ensure that the mediation process is finalised, without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks to 8 weeks and may file report on the outcome of the mediation process. Such report shall be forwarded by the mediation centre to the Family Court, Mavelikkara as well as to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Chenagannur, who are dealing with the instant Crime No. 2031/2019 of Mannar Police Station.

¶43

B.A.No.685/20 - : 6 :-

¶44

The Registry will forward copies of this order to the Family Court, Mavelikkara as well as the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Chengannur, for necessary information.

¶45

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application stands finally disposed of.

¶46

sdk+

¶47

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar 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

Sreeram Crushers Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Kalam Vs the District Collector

Suresh Babu K., Vs State of Kerala

Jos Kurian Vs State of Kerala

Venugopalan M. Vs the District Collector

Sasi, Vs Vattavada Grama Panchayath