Allowed

Aliyar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2022Bail Appl./251/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed an application for anticipatory bail to a 66-year-old accused alleged of threatening and assaulting his wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and IPC 324, subject to bonds, appearance, and specific undertakings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on anticipatory bail subject to bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties, appearance before investigating officer, and undertaking not to violate DV Act orders or interfere in investigation

Aliyar Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 251 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.06/2022 OF Kunnathunadu Police Station, Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ALIYAR,AGED 66 YEARS SON OF ASSINAR, PILAPPALLI HOUSE, CHENGARA KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, PATTIMATTOM P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683562 BY ADVS. K.R.PRATHISH S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD)

¶9

RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 68203 SRI.M.C. ASHI (P.P.)

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.251/2022

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶16

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.6/2022 of Kunnathunadu Police Station, alleging commission of offences under Sections 324 and 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')

¶17

The de facto complainant is the wife of the petitioner. She had obtained an order under the Act, following which she was residing with the petitioner and her son. It is alleged that on 2.1.2022, the petitioner questioned the de facto complainant as to with whom she was talking over phone and snatched away the phone and hit her on the left side of her forehead, below her eyes and on her neck and thereby he committed the offences alleged against him.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged. It is submitted that the de facto complainant has put up a false case only to make it appear that the petitioner had violated the order passed under the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that the attempt is only to see that the petitioner is accused of a non-bailable offence. It is submitted that the petitioner does not intend to violate any order passed under the Act.

¶19

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶20

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations and taking into account the undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will not

¶21

B.A.No.251/2022

¶22

¶23

violate any order passed under the provisions of the Act, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

¶24

In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Crime No.6/2022 of Kunnathunadu Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) Petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶26

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.6/2022 of Kunnathunadu Police Station at 10 a.m., on 18.3.2022 and thereafter whenever called upon to do so;

¶27

(iii) Petitioner shall not violate any order passed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005;

¶28

(iv) Petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.6/2022 of Kunnathunadu Police Station;

¶29

(v) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶30

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.6/2022 of Kunnathunadu Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

acd

B.A.No.251/2022

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 251/2022

¶37

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶38

Annexure1 ANNEXURE A1

Aliyar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aliyar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wilfred Aramban Vs State of Kerala

Midhesh P.M., Vs State of Kerala

Sankaranarayanan Vs State of Kerala

Arun.v.M Vs State of Kerala

Faizal Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Shonan M.P Vs State of Kerala