Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9496/2012 of NAVAS Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 Bail Appl..No. 9496 of 2012 (B) ------------------------------------------- [CRIME NO.1261/2012 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 9496 of 2012 (B)
------------------------------------------- [CRIME NO.1261/2012 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT]
......................
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
------------------------------------------ NAVAS, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.HASSAN KOYA, NAGINA MANZIL, ZACHARIA WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H,
SRI.B.H.ANSIL.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031, [REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT]
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S. SREEJITH.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.BHAVADASAN, J
----------------------------------------- B.A No.9496 of 2012
--------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
The petitioner, who is the husband of the defactocomplainant, is arrayed as an accused in Crime No.1261/2012 ofAlappuzha Police Station for having committed offencepunishable under Section 498(A) r/w 34 IPC.
2. The petitioner would say that he is innocent and hasbeen falsely implicated with ulterior motive. According to himhe has not committed any act as alleged.
3. Considering the fact that the issue involved in thematter is a matrimonial dispute and also since there is a chancefor reunion of the parties, it is felt that it is a fit case whereextraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of thepetitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed as follows:
i)The petitioner shall surrender before theInvestigating Officer on or before 9.1.2013, who afterinterrogation shall produce him before the JFCMconcerned and on an application for bail moved by thepetitioner, the learned Magistrate shall release thepetitioner on bail on his executing a bond for a sum ofRs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with twosolvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction ofthe said Court.
B.A No.9496 of 2012
ii)The learned Magistrate shall ensure theidentity of the sureties and also the veracity of the taxreceipts before granting bail.
Iii)The petitioner shall appear before theInvestigating Officer concerned for interrogation as andwhen required by him until further orders.
iv)The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt totamper with the evidence or influence or try to influencethe witness.
v)If any of the condition is violated, the bailgranted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, onbeing satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedingsas are available to him in law.
P.BHAVADASAN Judge