SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sajith Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 22ND PHALGUNA,
1941

Bail Appl..No.1517 OF 2020

CRIME NO.10/2020 OF Kudiyanmala Police Station , Kannur

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

SAJITH THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS, KADOOKUNNEL HOUSE, CHEMBERI,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT

BY ADV. SRI.A.C.VENUGOPAL

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DIST. PIN – 670 582

OTHER PRESENT:

AMJAD ALI SR.PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.1517 OF 2020
..2..

Bail Appl..No.1517 OF 2020
——————————————-

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.

10 of 2020 of Kudiyanmala Police Station registered for the

offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code. The petitioner is the husband of the de facto

complainant. 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.1517 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 12.03.2020

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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