Kerala High Court
Ajayan vs State Of Kerala on 2 February, 2016
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY,THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/13TH MAGHA, 1937
Bail Appl..No. 588 of 2016 ()
------------------------------
CRIME NO. 1326/2015 OF SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
-------------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
------------------------------------
AJAYAN, S/O.SAHADEVAN, AGED 34 YEARS,
ALUVILA VEEDU, VATTAVILA,
POUDIKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
PIN-682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R.REMA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
sts
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
---------------------------------------
B.A.No. 588 of 2016
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2016
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1326/2015 of Sreekariyam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 114, 323, 324, 325, 427 and 34 of IPC and Section 31 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violation Act, 2005.
2. The allegation of the de facto complainant who is the wife of the petitioner herein is that, she had moved the court and obtained a protection order under the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violation Act, 2005. Armed with that order, on 09.12.2015 she had gone to the house of petitioner herein where he allegedly hit on her nose and various parts of the body resulted in fracture of the nasal born. Alleging that it was in violation of the protection order granted by the court, the de facto complainant filed the complaint, based on which crime was registered. The petitioner apprehends arrest.
3. Evidently, the de facto complainant had B.A.No. 588 of 2016 2 moved the concerned court seeking relief under the DV Act. It appears even from her complaint that, she had given a copy of the order to the local Police Station and directly went to the matrimonial house wherein the incident allegedly took place.
4. The conduct of the petitioner cannot be justified and may amount to breach of the protection order, which is the subject matter of the concerned court. Since the dispute arose in the matrimonial house and that too, when the litigation was pending while the de facto complainant had gone there. I feel that the petitioner is entitled for pre arrest bail as follows:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.
Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.
B.A.No. 588 of 2016 3
(b) He shall comply with the protection order in true spirit, failure of which may amount to cancellation of this bail.
(c) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or his witnesses.
(d) He shall appear before the Investigation Officer on all Mondays and Thursdays between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of execution of bond.
The bail application is allowed as above.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE AD //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE