Allowed

Subeesh, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2024Bail Appl./188/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband accused of trespassing into his mother-in-law's house, wrongfully restraining her and assaulting her with a steel pipe causing grievous hurt, sought bail under Section 439 CrPC after the Magistrate dismissed his application fearing witness intimidation. Noting a settlement between the spouses who decided to live together, the High Court granted bail on strict conditions with a bond of Rs.5

What the court decided

AI extract

Subeesh, Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 26TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 188 OF 2024

¶6

CRIME NO.633/2023 OF VARAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM ORDER DATED 05.01.2024 IN CRMP 35/2024 OF JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, III, NORTH PARAVUR (TEMPORARY)

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED (IN CUSTODY) (ARRESTED ON 04.01.2024):

¶8

SUBEESH, AGED 34 YEARS

¶9

S/O.SHANMUGHAN, ASARIPARAMBIL VEEDU, OLANAD KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683511.

¶10

BY ADV LIFFY P. FRANCIS

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031.

¶13

ADV.RENJITH GEORGE -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

B.A. N.188 of 2024

¶17

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶18

-------------------------------

¶19

B.A.No. 188 of 2024

¶20

-------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2024

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶23

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.35/2024 of Varapuzha Police Station. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Section 452, 341, 326 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶24

The accusation against the petitioner is as follows:

¶25

The accused is the husband of the defacto complainant. At about 3.00 p.m. on 23.12.2023 the accused trespassed into the house of mother of the defacto complainant and wrongfully restrained and assaulted her using a steel pipe. It caused grievous hurt to her.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

A report of the Investigating Officer is placed on

¶28

¶29

B.A. N.188 of 2024

¶30

record. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.01.2024. His application for bail was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, North Paravur, holding that in the event of his release there is every possibility to intimidate the witnesses.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶32

that the dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant is already settled and they decided to live together. Certainly, the injuries inflicted to the defacto complainant are serious in nature. However, continued detention of the petitioner will not cater to the efforts to patch

¶33

differences between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Hence, I am of the view that a lenient view in the matter of granting bail can be taken. The investigation is yet to be complete and hence the petitioner can be released on bail subject to the strict conditions.

¶34

Accordingly, this petition is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

¶35

¶36

B.A. N.188 of 2024

¶37

learned Magistrate and subject to the fallowing conditions:-

¶38

i. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed;

¶39

ii. The petitioner shall not try to contact the victim girl and shall not influence or intimidate her or her family members, either directly, or indirectly.

¶40

iii. The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence

¶41

or attempt to intimidate the victims of the offence or witnesses.

¶42

iv. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶43

In case of violation of any of these conditions, the court below is empowered to cancel his bail, in accordance with law.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶46

SMF

Subeesh, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Subeesh, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs Joseph

Haeir Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd. (* Corrected as 'Haier' Per Order Dtd 26-10-23 in CRL.MA1/23) Vs State of Kerala

Fasal P.a., Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Raj Vs State, Represented by C.I. of Police

Anil, Vs State of Kerala

What is this about?

What is this about?

A compact analysis

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs Joseph

*Haeir* Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd. (* Corrected as 'Haier' Per Order Dtd 26-10-23 in CRL.MA1/23) Vs State of Kerala

Fasal P.a., Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Raj Vs State, Represented by C.I. of Police

Anil, Vs State of Kerala

Haeir Appliances (India) Pvt. Ltd. (* Corrected as 'Haier' Per Order Dtd 26-10-23 in CRL.MA1/23) Vs State of Kerala