Beejoy K.K v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/9TH ASHADHA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 3676 of 2015 () ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :
--------------------------
1. BEEJOY K.K., AGED 42, S/O. LATE KURIAKOSE, RESIDING AT KUTHUR HOUSE AKKIKAVU VILLAGE, PORKULAM PANCHAYATH THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2. SMT. BABY KURIAKOSE, AGED 70, W/O. LATE KURIAKOSE, RESIDING AT KUTHUR HOUSE AKKIKAVU VILLAGE, PORKULAM PANCHAYATH THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.THIYYANNOOR RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.ARUN KUMAR P.
SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION.
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn
K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH J.
....................................................... ..................................................... Dated this the 30th day of June, 2015 O R D E R This an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2 The case of the petitioners is that, petitioners, who are the husband and mother-in-law of de facto complainant filed this application apprehending arrest and detention in connection with Crime No.1213/2015 which was registered for offences under Sections 498(A) and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. When the application came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before me that the marriage took place on 12.4.2012 and for the last 11⁄2 years there was no connection with the de facto complainant.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has produced the case diary. After going through the case diary and also after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, the following order passed:
1.The first petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 21 days of this order. On such appearance, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to interrogate the 1st petitioner and if he feels that this is a case where arrest is necessary, he is at liberty to arrest the 1st petitioner. After arrest, if any recovery is necessary that also can be made. Thereafter the 1st petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.
2.In the case of the 2nd petitioner, in the event of arrest, the 2nd petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.
3. The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses.
4.The first petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on written notice. Surely sufficient time may be given for his appearance as it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that he is now working abroad.
On the above conditions, this anticipatory bail application is allowed.
Sd/- K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH JUDGE rka /true copy/ P.S to Judge.