Against The Order In Crl.M.C. … vs By Adv. Sri.R.Ranjith (Manjeri) on 29 March, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2017/29TH VAISAKHA, 1939

Bail Appl..No. 2736 of 2017 ()
——————————-

AGAINST THE ORDER IN Crl.M.C. 372/2017 of SESSIONS COURT,
MANJERI DATED 29-03-2017
CRIME NO. 55/2017 OF MELATTUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
———————–

KAMARUDHEEN,
S/O.ABDUREHMAN, POLLAKKANNAN HOUSE,
PALIYAKKODE, MELATHUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)

RESPONDENTS/STATE COMPLAINANT:
——————————–

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

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MELATTUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-679326.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M. THOMBRA

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19-05-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

DSV/19/5/17

SHIRCY V., J.
—————————————
B.A.No. 2736 of 2017
—————————————
Dated this the 19th day of May, 2017

O R D E R

This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed under

Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 55/2017

of Melattur Police Station, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 323 and 498A read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that this petitioner has

married the defacto complainant on 15.05.2008 and resided

together as husband and wife. While so, she was subjected

to severe illtreatment both mental and physical, demanding

more money and the petitioner has also assaulted her on

13.03.2017 and caused injuries, thereby the petitioner and

the other accused also had committed the aforesaid

offences.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence

as alleged. But, he apprehends arrest by the Police and in

B.A.No.2736 of 2017 2

order to avoid unnecessary detention by police, this

application has been filed by him.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has no serious

objection in granting bail to the petitioner as the dispute is

in between the husband and wife.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Public Prosecutor.

7. Having regard to the nature of the accusation

levelled against the petitioner and the present stage of the

investigation, I think that his request for pre-arrest bail can

be granted subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall be released on bail after

interrogation on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties each

for the like sum, in the event of his arrest by the Police in

connection with this case.

ii) The petitioner shall appear before the

Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required

by him, in writing.

B.A.No.2736 of 2017 3

iii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to

influence the witnesses, nor shall he tamper with the

evidence.

iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while

he is on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in

accordance with law.

This Bail Application is allowed.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.,
JUDGE
DSV/19/5/17

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *