SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sajeev P.P vs State Of Kerala on 12 November, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.8046 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1915/2019 DATED 31-10-2019 OF SESSIONS
COURT,THRISSUR

CRIME NO.1004/2019 OF Thrissur Town East Police Station , Thrissur

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

SAJEEV P.P.
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. PAPPUKUTTY, PASHNATH HOUSE, MALA, NOW RESIDING
AT IE TEMPLE TREES APARTMENT, PAZHAYANADAKKAVU,
THRISSUR.

BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.8046/2019 2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
——————————————-
B.A.No.8046 of 2019
———————————————-
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2019

ORDER

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.1 among the

three accused in the instant Crime No.1004/2019 of Thrissur Town East

Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under

Sections 420, 323, 294(b), 506(i), 498A r/w. Sec.34 of the SectionIPC on the basis

of the First Information Statement given by the lady defacto complainant

in this case on 6.9.2019 in respect of the alleged incident which happened

for the period from 1.7.2019 to 6.9.2019. The defacto complainant in this

case is the wife of the petitioner herein (A1). A2 and A3 are the mother and

sister’s husband respectively of the petitioner herein (A1).

2. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner, who is the

husband of the defacto complainant had subjected her to matrimonial

cruelty and voluntarily caused hurt to her and that A2 and A3 had

assaulted her and misappropriated her patrimony. Further that the

marriage between the above said spouses was conducted recently on

1.7.2019 and they have stayed together only for few days and that the

petitioner has misappropriated cash worth about Rs.22 lakhs and gold

ornaments worth about 4.5 lakhs given by her family etc. It appears that

the petitioner is aged 59 years and this is the 2 nd marriage of the defacto
B.A.No.8046/2019 3

complainant. A2 is the mother of the petitioner, aged more than 88 years.

The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 11.10.2019 and after his

remand, has been under detention for the last 32 days.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the

above said allegations are false and baseless and further that the lady

defacto complainant has stayed with the petitioner for hardly few days and

the above said allegations have been falsely made only to wreck vengeance

on the petitioner and his family members. Further that it was highly

improper to have made the petitioner suffer remand for the last 32 days for

the above said allegations. Accordingly, it is urged by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that the petitioner may be ordered to be released on bail

subject to stringent conditions that may be appropriately imposed by this

court.

4. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the

facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that the

petitioner is aged more than 59 years and also the crucial fact that he has

already suffered detention for the last more than 32 days, this Court is

constrained to take the view that further incarceration of the petitioner is

not necessary and proper and the petitioner could be released on regular

bail subject to appropriate conditions. Accordingly, it is ordered that the

petitioner/1st accused shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for

Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on his furnishing 2 solvent

sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the competent court

concerned. However, the above order shall be subject to the following
B.A.No.8046/2019 4

conditions:

(i). The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating
Officer in the interrogation process as and when
directed by him.

(ii). The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to
influence the defacto complainant/victim, witnesses;
nor shall tamper with the evidence.

(iii). The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence
while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional

Court concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider the application

for cancellation of bail, if required, and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with the law.

With these observations and directions, the above Application will

stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

acd

//true copy // PS to Judge

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