SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sujith Surendran vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 24TH POUSHA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.9362 OF 2019

CRIME NO.2894/2019 OF Chengannur Police Station , Alappuzha

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 SUJITH SURENDRAN
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. E R SUNDARAN PILLAI, EDAYANATHIL HOUSE PRAYAR,
PANDANAD NORTH P.O., KALLISERY 689 124.

2 OMANA,
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O. E R SUNDARAN PILLAI, EDAYANATHIL HOUSE, PRAYAR,
PANDANAD NORTH P.O. KALLISERY 689 124.

BY ADVS.
SRI.JIKKU SEBAN GEORGE
SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)
SRI.ARUN AJAY SHANKAR
SMT.DEEPTI SUSAN GEORGE

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA,
(THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM).

SRI.AMJED ALI – SR.PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.9362 OF 2019

2

Bail Application No.9362 of 2019

———————————————-

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438

of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.2894 of 2019 of

Chengannur Police Station registered under Section 323, 341 and 498A

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The defacto

complainant is the wife of the first petitioner and the second petitioner

is the mother of the first petitioner. The accusation in essence is that

the accused have subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty when

they were residing together.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also

the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and

circumstances of the case and having regard to the decision of the

Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of

Maharashtra, AIR 2011 SC 312, I am inclined to grant anticipatory

bail to the petitioners on the following conditions:

i) The petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer within ten
Bail Appl..No.9362 OF 2019

3

days from today. They shall also make themselves
available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer
as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing
to do so;

ii) If the petitioners are arrested prior to, or after their
appearance before the Investigating Officer in terms of this
order, they shall be released from custody on execution of
bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two sureties each for the
like sum.

(iii) The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the
prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper
with the evidence of the prosecution.

iv) The petitioners shall not involve in any other offence
while on bail.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

PV

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