SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nishanth vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 1ST MAGHA, 1941

Bail Appl.No.9144 OF 2019

CRIME NO.1277/2019 OF Kulathupuzha Police Station , Kollam

PETITIONERS:

1 NISHANTH,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.SURESH BABU, KULAKKARODU VEEDU,
KALLUVETTAMKUZHY, THINKALKARIKKAM, KULATHUPUZHA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.

2 MALLIKA,
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O.SURESH BABU, KULAKKARODU VEEDU,
KALLUVETTAMKUZHY, THINKALKARIKKAM, KULATHUPUZHA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
SMT.JOLIMA GEORGE
SMT.C.B.SABEELA

RESPONDENTS:

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

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KULATHUPUZHA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL, KOLLAM
DISTRICT – 691 310.

BY ADV.
SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.9144 OF 2019 2

Bail Application No.9144 of 2019
————————————-
Dated this the 21st day of January 2020

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in

Crime No.1277 of 2019 of Kulathupuzha Police Station

registered under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

3. The first petitioner is the husband of the de

facto complainant. The second petitioner is the mother of the

first petitioner. The allegation against the accused in the case

in essence is that the de facto complainant was subjected to

cruelty by the accused when they were residing together.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. It is seen that the case arose on account of

the matrimonial discord between the first accused 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
Bail Appl..No.9144 OF 2019 3

Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011

SC 312, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioners on the following conditions:

i) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation
before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today.
They shall also make themselves available for interrogation
before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the
Investigating Officer in writing to do so;

ii) If the petitioners are arrested prior to, or after their appearance
before the Investigating Officer in terms of this order, they shall
be released from custody on execution of bond for Rs.25,000/-
each with two sureties each for the like sum.

(iii) The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution
witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence of
the prosecution.

iv) The petitioners shall not involve in any other offence while on
bail.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

ska

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