High Court Kerala High Court

Dinil Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 19 December, 2007

Kerala High Court
Dinil Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 19 December, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 7817 of 2007()


1. DINIL KUMAR, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SUDHEER

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :19/12/2007

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                      ------------------------------------
                       B.A.No.7817 of 2007
                      -------------------------------------
            Dated this the 19th day of December, 2007

                                  ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 1st

accused. He is the husband of the defacto complainant. Crime

has been registered under Section 498 A I.P.C on the basis of a

private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate and referred

by the Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent

arrest.

2. The marriage took place on 3.2.06. One child has

been born in the matrimony. According to the petitioner, strain

in the matrimony is prompting the defacto complainant to make

reckless, false and vexatious allegations against the petitioner.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the

prayer for anticipatory bail. The learned Public Prosecutor

submits that the victim has not suffered any external injury

corresponding to the allegations of physical cruelty. I am

satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

B.A.No.7817 of 2007 2

In coming to this conclusion, I take note of the reality that arrest

and incarceration of the petitioner is likely to mar the

matrimonial tie beyond repair. Appropriate conditions can of

course be imposed.

4. In the result, the Bail Application is, allowed. The

following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned

Magistrate at 11 a.m on 26.12.2007. He shall be enlarged on

regular bail on his 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 learned Magistrate;

ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for

interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and

3 p.m on 27.12.2007 and 28.12.2007 and thereafter between 10

a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of two

months. Subsequently the petitioner shall make himself available

for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when

directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so;

B.A.No.7817 of 2007 3

iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned

Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall

thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to

arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as

if those directions were not issued at all;

iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender

on 26.12.07 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released

from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

Twenty Five thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to

appear before the learned Magistrate on 26.12.07.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-