SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Berney Yeasudas vs The State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019/24TH ASWINA, 1941

Bail Appl.No.7177 OF 2019

[AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1663/2019 DATED 26-09-2019 OF SESSIONS
COURT,KOLLAM

CRIME NO.284/2019 OF Chavara Police Station , Kollam]

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 BERNEY YEASUDAS,
AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O. BENEDICT, KOCHUPURAYIL VEEDU,
NEAR JOINT JUNCTION, NEENDAKARA P.O., KOLLAM.

2 BEVIN BENEDICT,
AGED 24 YEARS,
S/O. BENEDICT, KOCHUPURAYIL VEEDU, NEAR JOINT
JUNCTION, NEENDAKARA P.O., KOLLAM.

3 JAIN BENEDICT,
AGED 57 YEARS
D/O. KOCHU THRESIA, KOCHUPURAYIL VEEDU, NEAR JOINT
JUNCTION, NEENDAKARA P.O.

4 ROSE PRIYANKA,
AGED 31 YEARS,
D/O. BENEDICT, KOCHUPURAYIL VEEDU, NEAR JOINT
JUNCTION, NEENDAKARA P.O., KOLLAM.

BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH(PULLIKADA)

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

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

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691 583.

OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP MR.M S BREEZE

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO.7177 OF 2019

:-2-:

ORDER

Dated this the 16th day of October,2019

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under

Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as hereinbelow:-

The accused Nos.1 to 4 due to prior enmity towards

the de facto complainant Seeliya, on 10.3.2019 at about 12.30

p.m., in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully

restrained her and her relatives near a place called Joint

Junction on the Neendakara-Harbour Old NH Road in

Neendakara Village. It is alleged that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in

furtherance of their common intention had uttered obscene

words towards them and voluntarily caused hurt to the de facto

complainant, threatening that they would be done away with. It

is further alleged that accused 1 to 4 had voluntarily caused

hurt to one Solomon by hitting on his face with a rubble piece

and the accused 1 and 2 assaulted the de facto complaint with

an intent to outrage her modesty during the course of the very

same transaction.

3. Heard both sides. I have perused the case diary.

4. It is disclosed from the case diary that the second

respondent-the Sub Inspector of Police, Chavara Police Station
B.A.NO.7177 OF 2019

:-3-:

had registered a case as Crime No.284/2019 of Chavara Police

Station under Sections 143,Section147,Section148,Section447,Section323,Section324,Section354A,Section506 and

Section149 of the Indian Penal Code against the brother of the de facto

complainant and others. The First Information Statement was

laid therein by the third accused in this case. The learned

counsel for the petitioners contended that as a counter blast to

the above crime, the main accused in the said crime was

instrumental in filing this case through the de facto

complainant, who is none other than her sister without any

basis. On going through the wound certificate, it is clear that

no serious injuries were sustained to the de facto complainant.

Except the offence under Section 354 IPC, all other offences are

bailable. Prima facie, there is nothing on record to show that

the accused assaulted or used criminal force against the de

facto complainant with an intent to outrage her modesty as

alleged in the First Information Statement. In view of the above

circumstances, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for

granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

5. In the result, the petition is allowed and it is ordered

as follows:-

1) The petitioners shall be released on bail in the
event of their arrest by the police in Crime
No.284/2019 of Chavara Police Station on
B.A.NO.7177 OF 2019

:-4-:

their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two
solvent sureties each for the like amount to
the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

2) The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when directed
by him in writing to do so.

3) The petitioners shall not in any manner
intimidate or influence the prosecution
witnesses.

4) If the petitioners violate any of the above
conditions of bail, it is open to the Court
having jurisdiction over the case to cancel
their bail without any further orders from
this Court but in accordance with law.

sd/-

N.ANIL KUMAR,
JUDGE

MBS/
B.A.NO.7177 OF 2019

:-5-:

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