SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sumeesh vs State Of Kerala on 24 September, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 2ND ASWINA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.6589 OF 2019

CRIME NO.413/2019 OF Nallalam Police Station , Kozhikode

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

SUMEESH,AGED 38 YEARS
S/O.ARAVINTHAKSHAN, ANTHONIPARAMBA HOUSE, NADUVATTOM,
NORTH BEHYPORE, NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
SRI.P.P.SURENDRAN
SRI.A.V.NIDHIN

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.6589/2019 2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
——————————————-
B.A.No. 6589 of 2019
———————————————-
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2019

ORDER

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the

instant Crime No.413/2019 of Nallalam Police Station, which has been

registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, Section323, Section427, Section498A

of the IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and SectionProtection

of Children) Act, 2015 on the basis of the First Information Statement

given by the lady defacto complainant on 21.8.2019 at about 3.30 p.m

in respect of the alleged incidents, which had happened for the period

from 15.6.2003 onwards. The lady defacto complainant in this case is

the wife of the petitioner herein.

2. The prosecution case in short is that after the marriage of

the above said spouses, the petitioner has treated the lady with cruelty

and harassment and that he had demanded her to bring gold

ornaments and had also demanded her to the property in the name of

the defacto complainant’s mother should be transferred in the name of

the petitioner and that he had manhandled the lady defacto

complainant and that he had pushed down their child and that he had

caused damage to the house of the defacto complainant’s mother etc.
B.A.No.6589/2019 3

and thereby he has committed the above said offences.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in view

of the conduct of the petitioner in damaging the house articles of the

defacto complainant’s mother and as both parties, though separately

living, are now residing within the limit of the same Police Station, this

Court may issue necessary safeguards to ensure that the petitioner does

not intimidate or threatens the defacto complainant or her mother.

The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that the petitioner has

been implicated as accused in quite a few serious cases. In order to

alleviate the said apprehension raised by the prosecution, it is

proposed to order as a safeguard that the petitioner shall not enter into

or reside anywhere within the territorial limits of the Police Station

where the lady defacto complainant is now residing until the

conclusion of the trial,subject to certain exceptions, which will be dealt

with hereinafter.

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

the lady defacto complainant has already approached the learned

Magistrate under provisions of the Protection of Women from

SectionDomestic Violence Act and has secured an order restraining the

petitioner from mentally or physically harassing her or her children or

that he shall not interfere with the peaceful stay in her present

residence.

B.A.No.6589/2019 4

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

facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to take the

view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be really

warranted for effectuating the smooth and fair conduct of the

investigation in this crime. Hence, it is ordered in the interest of

justice that in the event of the petitioner being arrested by the Police in

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

executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and

on his furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the

satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.

6. Further it is also ordered that it 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.

(v) The petitioner shall not enter into or reside
anywhere within the territorial limits of the
Police Station within whose limits the lady defacto
complainant is residing, until the conclusion of the
trial in this case, except for the limited purpose of
reporting before the Investigating Officer in this
case or in any other crimes and for attending to
B.A.No.6589/2019 5

the courts in connection with this case or any
other cases or for contacting his advocate/lawyer,
etc. However, if there is any genuine need for the
petitioner may temporarily enter into the said
area, he may do so, only with due permission of the
Investigating Officer.

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

acd

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