SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 58064

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ROBIN K.JOHN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 6325/2021



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 15TH BHADRA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 6325 OF 2021 FIR NO.1129/2020 OF YEROOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

ROBIN K.JOHN AGED 33 YEARS KUZHIKKALA VADAKKEPARAMBIL VEEDU, KALLOOPARA, PATHNAMTHITTA P.O.

BY ADV T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

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

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER YERROOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN- 691 312.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

06.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 6th day of September 2021 Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1129/2020 of Yerroor Police Station in Kollam district. It is alleged that the marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnised on 30.05.2013 and thereafter she was mentally and physically harassed by the husband by demanding more dowry. Thereby the accused committed the offence as aforementioned.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the defacto complainant is of suspecious character and was always quarrelling with the petitioner alleging illegal relationship with other ladies. The petitioner is a driver by profession and three children were in born in their wed lock. The offences alleged are under Sections 498A, 294b, 323 and

506(2). The copy of the FIR has been produced.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted that there are no serious injuries. Recently third child also has been born out of their wed lock.

4. Being husband and wife possibility of reunion cannot be ruled out. Custodial intrrogation is also not seems necessary in the facts situation of this case.

In the said circumstances, I find it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall be released, on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) in the event of his arrest, with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Police Officer as an when required iii) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the victim and shall not enter into the jurisdictional limits of the police station where the victim resides.

iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

v) If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional court will be at liberty to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

The bail application is allowed as above.

Sd/-

M.R.ANITHA JUDGE SMF

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top