SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Binu vs State Of Kerala on 4 April, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1941

Bail Appl..No. 2148 of 2019

CRIME NO. 348/2019 OF Sooranad Police Station

PETITIONER/S:

BINU
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.SOMAN PILLAI, MANOJ BHAVAN, KIZHAKKEMURI,
THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPUZHA
DISTRICT-690530

BY ADV. SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA

RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE S.H.O SOORANAD POLICE STATION
THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM-682031.

OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. C.N.PRABHAKARAN-SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Bail Appl..No. 2148 of 2019

ORDER

Petitioner is the first accused in crime no.348/2019 of

Sooranad police station. He and his mother have allegedly

committed offences punishable under Secs 323, 341 and 498A of

IPC read with IPC 34. Bail is sought under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.

2. Prosecution case goes as follows: At the time of the

marriage of the first informant with the petitioner, she was gifted 32

sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs 2,50,000/- by her parents. The

petitioner and his mother sold those ornaments for their needs.

Owing to persistent harassment, the first informant had to quit her

matrimonial home and live in her parental home. When the first

informant asked the petitioner why was he late in arriving home on

23.2.2019, the petitioner brutally assaulted the first informant on

her face and back.

3. Heard Sri.Ieans C.Chamakkala, the learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri.C.N.Prabhakaran, the learned senior public

prosecutor.

4. The papers in the case diary suggest a strong prima

facie case against the petitioner. There are serious allegations

against him in the FI statement. The wound certificate suggests

sustainment of grave injuries by the victim on her person. There

was oedema around her left eye. Considering all these matters, I do

not find the present one to be a fit case to make available the

provisions of Sec.438 of Cr.P.C favourable to the petitioner. The
3
Bail Appl..No. 2148 of 2019

application therefore deserves only a dismissal.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his

client is ready to surrender before the investigating officer. The

petitioner is free to do so. In the event of his surrender, the

investigating officer, after interrogation, shall produce the petitioner

before the magistrate within the time specified by the Cr.P.C. On

such production, the learned magistrate will act according to law. It

is made clear that the investigating officer is under no obligation to

wait for the surrender of the petitioner.

7. The application is dismissed.

SD/-

A.M.BABU

SKS/4.4.2019 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