Allowed

Suhara v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Nov 2020Bail Appl./7766/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC allowed bail to three accused in a matrimonial cruelty case registered under Sections 498A and IPC 447, 448, 506, 294(b) via section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Bail granted on stringent conditions including strict adherence to COVID-19 norms.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on stringent conditions including bond of Rs.50,000, appearance for interrogation, cooperation in investigation, and strict adherence to COVID-19 social distancing guidelines.

Suhara Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.7766 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.772/2020 OF EDATHALA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 SUHARA AGED 63 YEARS BLAYIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODIKUTHUMALA, ERUMATHALA KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE EDATHALA PANCHAYATH, ALUVA PO, 683101

¶9

2 SHAYAS AGED 44 YEARS BLAYIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODIKUTHUMALA, ERUMATHALA KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE EDATHALA PANCHAYATH, ALUVA PO, 683101

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.VINOD (CHERAI)

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

R1 BY SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.A. No.7766 of 2020 2

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 27th day of November 2020

¶19

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.

¶20

2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 772 of 2020 of Edathala Police Station, Ernakulam District. The above case is registered against the petitioners and another alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 447, 448, 506, 294(b) r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶21

3. The prosecution case is that, the

¶22

petitioners and the other accused mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant who is the wife of the 1^st accused. It is a private complaint filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court and the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶23

B.A. No.7766 of 2020 3

¶24

4. Heard the learned counsel for the

¶25

petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.

¶26

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the allegations against the petitioners are matrimonial cruelty. The counsel submitted that, the main allegation is against the 1^st accused. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners are the 2^nd and 3^rd accused. The counsel submitted that, the matrimonial relationship between the 1^st accused and the defacto complainant is in existence even now. The counsel submitted that, the petitioners are in-laws of the defacto complainant and there is no serious allegations against the petitioners.

¶27

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application. The public prosecutor submitted

¶28

that if this Court is granting bail to them, stringent conditions may be imposed.

¶29

7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶30

Admittedly, the offences alleged against the petitioners are matrimonial offence. The matrimonial

¶31

B.A. No.7766 of 2020 4

¶32

relationship between the 1^st accused and the defacto complainant is in existence even now. The petitioners are the parents of the 1^st accused. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶33

8. Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench of this Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.

¶34

9. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to

¶35

B.A. No.7766 of 2020 5

¶36

bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

¶37

10. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

¶38

1. The petitioners shall appear

¶39

before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;

¶40

2. After interrogation, if the

¶41

Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the

¶42

satisfaction of the officer concerned;

¶43

B.A. No.7766 of 2020 6

¶44

3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶45

4. The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court;

¶46

5. The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;

¶47

6. The petitioners shall strictly

¶48

abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central

¶49

B.A. No.7766 of 2020 7

¶50

Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid

¶51

19 pandemic;

¶52

7. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶55

pkk

¶56

JUDGE

Suhara v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhara 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zeenath P.M. Vs State of Kerala

Prasannan T.K. Vs State of Kerala

Akheela Palanchalil Vs State of Kerala

Nishaj Vs State of Kerala

Wilson Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala

Jyothish Vs State of Kerala