SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Crime No.727/2019 Of Aluva West … vs By Adv. Sri.N.A.Shafeek on 27 February, 2020

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.626 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 2704/2019 DATED 06-01-
2020 OF DISTRICT COURT SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

CRIME NO.727/2019 OF ALUVA WEST POLICE STATION
(ALANGAD) , Ernakulam

APPLICANT/ACCUSED:

MOHAMMED MUBARAK, AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL KHADER, PULIYATH HOUSE,
VAZHELIPARAMBU, U.C. COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA.

BY ADV. SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ALUVA WEST POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682031.

BY SR. PP SRI. SANTHOSH PETER

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.626 of 2020

..2..

BAIL APPLICATION No. 626 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. 727

of 2019 of Aluva West Police Station registered for offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506(i), 341 and 427 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 75

of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

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
Bail Appl..No.626 of 2020

..3..

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:

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

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