SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kamal Kumar P.K vs State Of Kerala on 16 January, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 26TH POUSHA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.9129 OF 2019

CRIME NO.1894/2019 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

KAMAL KUMAR P.K.,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.K.PRASANNAN, PUNNAVILA VEEDU, THAZHAM THEKKU,
CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM, PIN – 691 572.

BY ADVS.
SRI. SIJU KAMALASANAN
SMT.S.REKHA
SMT.S.SEETHA
SMT.ANJANA KANNATH

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 31.

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM – 691 001.

SRI AMJETH ALI, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.9129 OF 2019

2

Bail Application No.9129 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.1894 of

2019 of Kollam East Police Station registered under Section 498A of

the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is none other than the husband

of the de facto complainant. The accusation in the case 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. It is seen that the case is one which arose on account

of the matrimonial discord between the petitioner and the de facto

complainant. In the circumstances, having regard to the totality of the

facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to 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:

i) The petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer within ten
Bail Appl..No.9129 OF 2019

3

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.

DK

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