SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Akhil Vasu vs The Station House Officer on 14 February, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.9464 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30-10-2019 IN CRMC 1494/2019 OF DISTRICT
COURT SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE

CRIME NO.839/2019 OF Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode

PETITIONER/ ACCUSED :

AKHIL VASU,
AGED 29 YEARS,
S/O.VASU, CHOLAYIL HOUSE,
KODATHAYI BAZAR, KOZHIKODE

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANTS STATE :

1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN – 682 031

BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SANTHOSH PETER

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.9464 OF 2019
2

Bail Application No.9464 of 2019

———————————————-

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438

of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.839 of

2019 of Thamarassery Police Station registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 498A read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also

the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The defacto complainant is the wife of the accused.

The accusation against the accused in essence is that the accused has

subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty when they were residing

together. It is also alleged that the accused assaulted the defacto

complainant.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and also having perused the materials on record, I am of the view that

the case arose on account of the matrimonial discord between the

defacto complainant and her husband, the petitioner.

6. 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 anticipatory bail

to the petitioner on the following conditions:
Bail Appl..No.9464 OF 2019
3

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
rkj JUDGE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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