Allowed

Sheen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2022Bail Appl./528/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

a bench of Justice Gopinath P. allowed an application for anticipatory bail for accused persons charged under sections 341, 323, 324, and 326 IPC in relation to matrimonial dispute allegations involving assault and harassment.

What did the court decide?

the petitioners were directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to execution of bonds, appearance before the investigating officer, and non-interference with the investigation or witnesses.

Sheen 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 528 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO. 26/2022 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/A1 AND A3:

¶8

1SHEEN

¶9

AGED 30 YEARS

¶10

S/O. LAWRANCE, KANNIYANKADU PALLI PURAYIDOM, KAVANADU
(PO), KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2 EMMANUEL, AGED 23 YEARS

¶12

S/O.VIJAYAN, EMMANUEL BHAVANAM, ST.JOSEPH ISLAND,
KAVANADU (PO), KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV N.SUNIL JOSEPH

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶15

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

¶16

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN691001.

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SMT. SEETHA .S. (SR.PP)

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.528/2022

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail

¶24

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in Crime No. 26/2022 of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District alleging commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶25

The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners along with the 2^nd accused in the case attacked the de facto complainant (brother-in-law of the 1^st accused/1^st petitioner) and caused serious injuries to him.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that an absolutely false complaint has been raised by the de facto complainant on account of the fact that the sister of the 1^st petitioner had not agreed for a proposal to settle matrimonial disputes between her and the de facto complainant. It is submitted that owing to continuous harassment at the hands of the de facto complainant, the sister of the 1^st petitioner had filed a complaint before the Kollam East Police Station following which the de facto complainant had filed the present complaint alleging that he had been assaulted by the petitioners and the 2^nd accused in the case. It is submitted that the petitioners are

¶27

B.A.No.528/2022

¶28

¶29

absolutely innocent in the matter and they have no criminal antecedents and at any rate their custodial interrogation is not necessary for the purposes of a proper investigation in to the matter.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. The injuries suffered by the de facto complainant are pointed out to show that the petitioners are not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail at this stage. It is submitted that going by the allegations raised by the de facto complainant, the petitioners together with the 2^nd accused had brutally assaulted him, causing serious injuries to him, including fracture on the interior wall of the right orbit. It is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

¶31

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into the consideration to the fact that there are no criminal antecedents reported against the petitioners and also considering the fact that there appear to be matrimonial disputes between the sister of the 1^st petitioner and the de facto complainant, I am of the view that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions. I am also convinced that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for a proper investigation.

¶32

B.A.No.528/2022

¶33

¶34

In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Crime No. 26/2022 of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District subject to the following conditions:-

¶35

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

¶36

ii. Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No. 26/2022 of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District as and when summoned to do so;

¶37

iii. Petitioners shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No. 26/2022 of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District

¶38

iv. Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶39

B.A.No.528/2022

¶40

¶41

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No. 26/2022 of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

ats

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

Sheen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheen 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

Joyal John Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Kamarudheen Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Rafi M Vs State of Kerala

Primoose Antony Vs State of Kerala

Shiju.T Vs State of Kerala

Noushad P.T. Vs the State of Kerala