SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gimson George vs State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.860 OF 2020

CRIME NO. 115 OF 2020 OF KORATTY POLICE STATION

PETITIONER:

GIMSON GEORGE, AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.P.J/GEORGE, HOUSE NO.10/173-A,PUDUSSERY
HOUSE, CHIRANGARA, KORATTY EAST P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRCT

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNKAULAM

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KORATTY POLICE STATION, THIRSSUR DISTRICT

OTHER PRESENT:

T.R.RENJITH SR PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 03.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.860 OF 2020

..2..

Bail Appl..No.860 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. 115

of 2020 of Koratty Police Station registered for the offence

punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code. 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

the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State

of Maharashtra, (AIR 2011 SC 312), I am inclined to grant
Bail Appl..No.860 OF 2020

..3..

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 04.03.2020

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