Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Xxxxx Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2021)

Home
Kerala HC
2021
Xxxxx Vs State of KeralaXxxxx v. State of Kerala

Allowed

Xxxxx v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2021Bail Appl./7525/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two bail applications were disposed of in a criminal case involving assault on a wife and disabled daughter. Bail was granted to the first accused due to lack of specific allegations in the FIR, while anticipatory bail was denied to his brothers who faced direct accusations corroborated by medical evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail under Rs. 50,000 bond with strict conditions of reporting, non-contact, and passport surrender. Bail application of brothers dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner released on bail under Rs. 50,000 bond with strict conditions of reporting, non-contact, and passport surrender. Bail application of brothers dismissed.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the first accused facing charges for assault and cruelty against his wife and disabled daughter. +1 more

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the first accused, who was accused of instigating an attack on his wife and disabled daughter, noting no specific overt act was alleged against him in the FIR. Conversely, bail was denied to his brothers (accused 2, 3, and 4) as medical reports prima facie confirmed the allegations of assault, making their case distinguishable in terms of available relief.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

BAIL APPL. NO. 7654 OF 2021

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1258/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY

CRIME NO.355/2021 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION

APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.1:

KABEER P.T, AGED 48 YEARS 48 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, DARUL KABEER, CHERUPAZHASSI POST, KALADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV BIJU ANTONY ALOOR

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

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

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

SMT. SEETHA . (SR.P.P.)

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2021, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.7525/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA,

1943

BAIL APPL. NO. 7525 OF 2021

(CRIME NO.355/2021 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION)

APPLICANTS/ACCUSED Nos.2 to 4 :

1 XXXXX X 2 HILAL AGED 45 YEARS OCC-LABOURER, S/O. ABDULLA P.S, KOIPARAMBATHU HOUSE, VADAKKE MOTTA, THANGAL ROAD, KOLACHERI, CHELERI, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670604.

3 SULTHAN P.T AGED 34 YEARS OCC-COOLIE, PONANAMKAI, THAIKANDI, AKKARAMAMAL, CHIRAKKAL P.O, KANJIRATHARA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS. BIJU ANTONY ALOOR K.P.PRASANTH SHAFIN AHAMMED T.S.KRISHNENDU

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031.

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021

3

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670601.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP)

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

ON 06.12.2021, ALONG WITH B.A.NO.7654/2021 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021 4

ORDER

Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 355/2021 of Mayyil Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Sections 461, 341, 324, 354 r/w 34 of the IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 92(b) of the Right of Persons with Disability Act 2016 .

The allegation against the petitioner is that he together with accused Nos.2 to 4 (brothers of the petitioner) attacked the de facto complainant (wife of the petitioner) and their daughter who is a disabled girl using a burning piece of firewood and thereby committed the offences alleged against them.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier a complaint was registered against the petitioner at the instance of the de facto complainant alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 354B and

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021 5

376 and Section 511 of IPC. Sections 8 and 9 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. It is submitted that the petitioner was in custody in that case from 12.7.2021 and obtained statutory bail after completion of 60 days. It is submitted that despite the fact that the aforesaid crime was registered even when the petitioner was in custody in connection with Crime No.339/2021, arrest of the petitioner was not recorded in Crime No.355/2021. It is also submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the FIS in Crime No.355/2021. It is submitted that allegations are falsely and maliciously raised when the brothers of the petitioner came to the house for a settlement talk regarding the issues raised in Crime No.339/2021/

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the petitioner had instigated his brothers to attack the de facto complainant and her daughter and that though there is no specific allegation that the petitioner himself had attacked the de facto complainant and her daughter, there

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021 6

are clear allegations of attack by the brothers of the petitioner and the petitioner is therefore responsible in equal measure. However, it is admitted that the arrest of the petitioner could have been recorded while he was in custody in Crime No.339/2021.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that no specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner, in the F.I.S in Crime No.355/2021, I am of the view that petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions.

In the result, this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of arrest in crime No. 355/2021 of Mayyil police Station subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the likesum to the

7

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021

satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.355/2021 of Mayyil Police Station on every Monday and Saturday at 11 A.M. until further orders:

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.355/2021 of Mayyil police station;

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

(v)The petitioner shall not enter the jurisdictional limits of Mayyil Police Station, Kannur District until further orders except for the purpose of complying with condition No.2 above.

(vi) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court. If the petitioner is required to go abroad, in connection with his employment, he shall make an application to the jurisdictional court both in Crime Nos.339/2021 and Crime No. 355/2021 of Mayyil Police Station and he

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021

8

shall be permitted to go abroad only after obtaining permission from the jurisdictional court. Needless to say if the petitioner is permitted to go abroad, the passport of the petitioner can be released.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.355/2021 of Mayyil police station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.

B.A.No.7525/2021

Petitioners are accused 2,3 and 4 in Crime No.355/2021 of Mayyil Police Station.

I have noticed herein before, while deciding B.A.

No.7654/2021, the circumstances which led to the registration of Crime No.355/2021 .

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the fact that there are specific allegations against petitioners 2,3 and 4 regarding the

BAIL APPL. NOs. 7654/2021 & 7525/2021 9

incident which took place on 8.7.2021 and considering the fact that the medical report of the de facto complainant and her daughter show that the allegations are prima facie correct, I am of the view that the accused Nos.2,3, and 4 (petitioners in B.A. 7525/2021) are not entitled to anticipatory bail. The circumstances that compelled me to grant bail to the 1^st accused are not available here. Therefore, B.A. No.7525/2021 stands dismissed. I make it clear that it is open for the petitioners in B.A. No.7525/2021 to surrender and seek regular bail.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

al/-

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the first accused facing charges for assault and cruelty against his wife and disabled daughter.
2.
Whether anticipatory bail is available to the petitioner's brothers against whom specific allegations exist and medical reports corroborate injury.

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

IPC461, 341, 324, 354
Juvenile Justice Act75
Right of Persons with Disability Act92(b)

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
Kabeer P.T
respondent
XXXXX X
respondent
Hilal
respondent
Sultan P.T
respondent
The State of Kerala

Coram

AI extract

Gopinath P.

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Kerala HC
Decided on: 6 Dec 2021 · December
Registered: 23 Sept 2021
Case no.: Bail Appl./7525/2021
CNR: KLHC010494212021
Topic: Domestic Violence
Bench: Gopinath P.
Disposal: DISMISSED

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Gopinath P.

Muhammed Nazeeb Vs State of Kerala
3 Dec 2021
Ameer Ali Vs the State of Kerala
3 Dec 2021
Xxx Vs the State of Kerala
3 Dec 2021
James Joseph Vs State of Kerala
6 Dec 2021
Kabeer P.T, Vs the State of Kerala
6 Dec 2021
T K Subash Vs State of Kerala
6 Dec 2021

Cite this judgement

Xxxxx v. State of Kerala, Bail Appl./7525/2021 (KL), decided on 6 December 2021.

The High Court of Kerala publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

IPC461, 341, 324, 354
Juvenile Justice Act75
Right of Persons with Disability Act92(b)

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

Gopinath P.

Parties & counsel