IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 8TH PHALGUNA,
1941

Bail Appl..No.967 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 69/2020 DATED 03-02-
2020 OF DISTRICT COURT SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM

CRIME NO.60/2020 OF Karunaagapally Police Station ,
Kollam

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

ADARSH C.B., AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.K.CHANDRA BOSE, RESIDING AT ‘SANTHI’,
PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY(P.O.), KOLLAM
DISTRICT, KERALA-690518.

BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

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

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690518.

BY SR. PP SRI. AMJAD ALI

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.967 OF 2020

..2..

Bail Appl..No.967 OF 2020
————————————

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 60

of 2020 of Karunagappally Police Station registered for

offences punishable under Sections 323 and 498A of the Indian

Penal Code. The de facto complainant in the case is the wife of

the petitioner. The accusation against the accused in essence

is that the petitioner has subjected the de facto complainant to

cruelty when they were residing together.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. I have gone through the case diary. It is seen

that the dispute arose on account of the matrimonial discord

between the de facto complainant and her husband, the

petitioner. In the circumstances, in the light of the decision of

the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State

of Maharashtra, (AIR 2011 SC 312), I am inclined to grant
Bail Appl..No.967 OF 2020

..3..

anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer within ten
days from today. He shall also make himself available
for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as
and when directed by the Investigating Officer in
writing to do so;

ii) If the petitioner is arrested prior to, or after his
appearance before the Investigating Officer in terms of
this order, he shall be released from custody on
execution of a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties
each for the like sum.

(iii) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the
prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper
with the evidence of the prosecution.

iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other
offence while on bail.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
ds 28.02.2020