SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shinoy vs State Of Kerala on 31 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1941

BAIL APPL.NO.3658 OF 2019

CRIME NO.349/2019 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

SHINOY, AGED 50/19,
S/O.CHACKO, ASARIKUDIYIL HOUSE, MARADY VILLAGE,
EAST MARADY KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.NAVAS

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
————————————-
B.A. No. 3658 of 2019
————————————-
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2019

ORDER

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the accused

No.1 among the 4 accused in the instant Crime No.349/2019 of

Muvattupuzha Police Station, which has been registered for offences

punishable under Secs.498a, 354 34 of the SectionIPC, on the basis of

FIS given by the lady defacto complainant 8.2.2019 at 7.45 pm in

respect of the alleged incident which has happened on 7.2.2019 at

7 pm. The lady defacto complainant in this case is the wife of the

petitioner (A1). A2 to A4 are the sister’s husband, sister and mother

respectively of the petitioner (A1).

2. The prosecution case in short is that, the petitioner (A1)

aged 50 years has been married to the lady defacto complainant

aged 40 years for the last 23 years or so, and that with the unlawful

intention to coerce the lady defacto complainant and their children

to sell the property in the name of children to the person of the

choice of the petitioner and other accused, the accused persons on

7.2.2019 at 7 pm had assaulted the lady defacto complainant as she

refused the request, and A2 had torn her night, etc.
B.A. No. 3658 of 2019

..3..

3. It is now apprised to this Court that all the other accused

persons concerned (A2 to A4) have already been granted anticipatory

bail by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.

4. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of

the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered

view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner (A1) may not be

necessary or warranted for effectuating smooth and fair conduct of

investigation in the above crime. Accordingly it is ordered that, in

the event of the petitioner (A1) being arrested by police in

connection with the abovesaid crime, he shall be released on bail

on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on his furnishing two

solvent sureties for the like sum, both to the satisfaction of the

Investigating Officer concerned.

5. Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail will be

subject to following conditions:-

i. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of
similar nature.

ii. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.
iii. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as
and when required in that connection.

iv. The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or
attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

B.A. No. 3658 of 2019

..4..

If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by

the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby

empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the

appropriate time.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail

Application will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE

MMG

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