SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Afsal Koya vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 9TH PHALGUNA,
1941

Bail Appl..No.1164 OF 2020

CRIME NO.20/2020 OF Kareelakulangara Police Station ,
Alappuzha

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 2:

1 AFSAL KOYA, AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. KOYA, KANDATHIL PARAMBIL VEEDU, KEERIKAD
P.O., PATHIYOOR, KAREELAKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA.

2 SEENA, AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.KOYA, KANDATHIL PARAMBIL VEEDU, KEERIKAD
P.O., PATHIYOOR, KAREELAKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA.

BY ADVS.
SMT.HYMA.S
SMT.LISHA.M.G.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT P.O.,
ERNAKUKLAM-682 031.

BY SR. PP SRI. SANTHOSH PETER

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Application No. 1164 of 2020

..2..

Bail Application No. 1164 of 2020
————————————–

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in

Crime No. 20 of 2020 of Kareelakulangara Police Station

registered for offences punishable under Sections 323 and

498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The first

petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant and the

second petitioner is the mother the first petitioner. The

accusation against the petitioners in essence is that they have

subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty when they were

residing together.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

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 first

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

the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State
Bail Application No. 1164 of 2020

..3..

of Maharashtra (AIR 2011 SC 312), I am inclined to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the following conditions:

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

ii) If the petitioners are arrested prior to, or after
their appearance before the Investigating Officer in
terms of this order, they shall be released from
custody on execution of bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties
each for the like sum.

iii) The petitioners shall not influence or
intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they
attempt to tamper with the evidence of the
prosecution.

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

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
ds 28.02.2020

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation