SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Paul vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 9TH PHALGUNA,
1941

Bail Appl..No.817 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 2247/2019 OF DISTRICT
COURT SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR

CRIME NO.847/2019 OF Thrissur West Police Station ,
Thrissur

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

PAUL, AGED 51 YEARS
ADVOCATE, S/O.LATE FRANCIS, PUTHUR HOUSE,
KURIACHIRA DESOM, CHEEYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR
TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680006.

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
SRI.V.C.SARATH
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

BY SR. PP SRI. SANTHOSH PETER

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.9373 OF 2019

..2..

Bail Application No. 817 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. 847

of 2019 of Thrissur West Police Station registered for offences

punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 294(b), 506 and 325 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.9373 OF 2019

..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 *


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