Allowed

Asokan N.S, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Apr 2024Bail Appl./2258/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application by an accused in a domestic-violence protection-order violation and mischief case, earlier dismissed by the Sessions Court. The High Court allowed bail with conditions, holding detention during investigation unnecessary and directing surrender before arrest.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed: surrender to investigating officer within two weeks; release on Rs.50,000 bond with two like sureties, subject to stated conditions.

Asokan N.S, Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 2258 OF 2024

¶6

CRIME NO.57/2024 OF VILAPPILSSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶8

ASOKAN N.S, AGED 41 YEARS S/O NELSON RESIDING AT 'SANTHA BHAVAN', MANJADI, MOONGODU, PEYAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695573

¶9

BY ADV NAVEEN RADHAKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SR.PP – SRI.RENJITH GEORGE

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

BAIL APPL. NO. 2258 OF 2024

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶19

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.57 of 2024 of Vilappilsala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Section 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner violated the protection order issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Thiruvanathapuram in C.M.P.No.1151 of 2023 in M.C.No.14 of 2023. It is also alleged that the petitioner committed mischief by setting the dress and certificates of the de facto complainant at fire.

¶21

The Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram, dismissed the application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner pointing that the petitioner knowing fully well about the prohibitory order had committed such a mischief and therefore, he was not entitled to get anticipatory bail.

¶22

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

¶23

BAIL APPL. NO. 2258 OF 2024

¶24

¶25

Considering the nature of the offence and relationship between the parties, the detention of the petitioner during investigation is not appeared necessary, certainly, the investigating officer need to question the petitioner, for which he could well get his presence by issuing a notice under Section 41A of the Code. From the allegations levelled against the petitioner, it cannot be assumed that the recovery of any object is necessary. In such circumstances, Sessions Judge ought to have allowed the petition imposing necessary conditions, so as to enable the Investigating Officer to continue and conclude the investigation in an appropriate manner.

¶26

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and in the event of the petitioner being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

¶27

(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

¶28

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for; and

¶29

BAIL APPL. NO. 2258 OF 2024

¶30

¶31

(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence.

¶32

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be

¶33

at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶34

sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

¶37

BAIL APPL. NO. 2258 OF 2024

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2258/2024

¶40

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶41

Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IN CRL.MC 466/24 DATED 7.3.2024

Asokan N.S, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asokan N.S, 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

Leela Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishna Naik Vs N.P. Thomas

Balakrishnan Nair Vs George Paul

Adv.M.Swaraj Vs K.Babu

Shihab Vs State of Kerala

Sidhique, Vs State of Kerala