SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sreekumar vs State Of Kerala on 10 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.7173 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 2732/2019 DATED 01-10-2019 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KOLLAM

CRIME NO.1071/2019 OF Kundara Police Station , Kollam

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

SREEKUMAR
AGED 41 YEARS
SO RAJAN, KALLUVILA VEDU, KUNDARA, THANNIKODE
P.O.KOLLAM-691 501.

BY ADV. SMT.BHANU THILAK

RESPONDENTS/STATE COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 501,
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682 031.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.7173 OF 2019 2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
—————————————–
B.A. No. 7173 of 2019
—————————————–
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2019

ORDER

The petitioner has been initially arrayed as accused No.1 in the

instant Crime No.1071/2019 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam District

which has been registered for the offences punishable under Secs. 294(b),

323, 313, 498A and 506 of the SectionIPC on the basis of the FI statement given by

the lady defacto complainant on 21.05.2019 at about 10 pm in respect of

the alleged incidents which had happened for the period from 16.01.2012

onwards. The lady defacto complainant is the wife of the petitioner herein

(originally arrayed as accused No.1). Initially, there are 5 other accused

persons including A5 and A6, who are the father and mother respectively of

the petitioner herein. The Police after investigation has now deleted all the

other accused persons from the accused array except the petitioner and

now petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant crime.

2. The prosecution case is that after the marriage of the abovesaid

spouses, the petitioner has treated the lady with cruelty and harassment

and further that in the year 2015, when the lady became pregnant, the

petitioner had compelled her to undergo abortion process and had by

making her to take pills for the said purpose etc. The petitioner has been
Bail Appl..No.7173 OF 2019 3

arrested in this case on 25.09.2019 and after his remand, he has been

under detention since then.

3. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts

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

petitioner has already suffered detention for the last 15 days and also taking

into account the fact that the allegations of abortion, which are said to have

happened in the year 2015 has been reported to the Police only after the

delay of 4 years etc., this Court is inclined to take the view that the

petitioner has made out a strong probable that his continued detention is

not necessary or warranted and that he could be released on regular bail

subject to stringent conditions.

4. Accordingly it is ordered that the petitioner shall be released on

bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)

and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, each to the

satisfaction of the competent court below concerned.

5. However the grant of bail will be subject to the following

conditions:-

i. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every 2 nd
and 4th Saturdays, at any time between 10 am and 1 pm, for a further
period of 3 months and thereafter he will report before the investigating
officer as and when directed by the said officer.
ii. He shall not commit any offence while on bail.
iii. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.
iv. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when
required in that connection.

v. He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the lady defacto
complainant, witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

Bail Appl..No.7173 OF 2019 4

If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner

then the jurisdictional court concerned shall stand hereby empowered to

consider the plea for cancellation of bail if required, and pass appropriate

orders in accordance with law.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application

will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE

SKS

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