Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Prasanthan Vs. the State of Kerala

Prasanthan vs The State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Sep 27, 2013
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1089174

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prasanthan

Respondent

The State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....to her. but it is not discernible from the note itself when exactly the ill treatment began whether after or before the death of her elder son. the only younger son is studying in plus one.9. learned public prosecutor submits that his conduct is not very commendable. the family is now left with the petitioner and his son. under such circumstances, it is felt that it is only just and proper that the petitioner should be released on bail especially for the safety of the surviving son. after having bestowed anxious consideration this petition is allowed as under :1. petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for rs.25,000/-(rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.2. the learned magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail.3. petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on every wednesday between 9 am and 10 am until further orders. b.a.6383/13 4 4. the petitioner shall not leave the district without prior permission of the court concerned.4. petitioner shall not temper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.5. if any of the conditions is violated, the bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled and the court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available in law. sd/- p.bhavadasan, judge // true copy // sou.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY,THE27H DAY OF SEPTEMBER20135TH ASWINA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 6383 of 2013 () ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1018/2013 OF MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. .... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- PRASANTHAN, AGED47YEARS S/O.DEVARAJAN, VALAYIKAKATH HOUSE, CHERAYI PALLIPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN68221. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2709-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J.

--------------------------------------- Bail Application No. 6383OF2013--------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2013. ORDER

Petitioner is the sole accused in crime No.1018/2013 of the Munmbam Police Station. He is alleged to have committed offence punishable under section 306 IPC.

2. This bail application reflects the sad plight of a family, details of which need not be mentioned here. The family consisted of accused, deceased who committed suicide, and two sons, one of them died in a road accident. Different versions are given about the conduct of deceased, so also about the surviving members. Opinion is not unanimous regarding the conduct of the petitioner also. Petitioner is a pump operator.

3. According to the petitioner after the death of their elder son, who was very much attached to the mother, the mother became upset. She was not able to retain mentall equilibrium. Under such circumstances, it is pointed out that some uncalled for remarks on the part of the petitioner might have disturbed the victim. That would have driven the wife to commit suicide.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that B.A.6383/13 2 except for statement made by certain persons after the incident there is nothing to show that the petitioner has been ill treating his wife or that he was cruel to her. Even the suicide note alleged to have been recovered from the body of the victim does not indicate when the ill treatment began whether after or before the death of her elder son.

5. According to learned counsel even assuming all the allegations are true they are not sufficient to attract offence under section 306 IPC.

6. At any rate, the petitioner have been in custody from 17.9.2013 and he is continued in custody unnecessarily.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the petitioner right from the beginning of their married life has been treating his wife cruelly and she was fed up with her life. Petitioner is alleged to have been cruel also to her son who died in a road accident. According to learned Public Prosecutor the petitioner does not deserve any sympathy 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Case Diary perused. Case Diary contains the suicide note, alleged to have been recovered from the body of the victim. It certainly contains statements which B.A.6383/13 3 show that the petitioner has been extremely cruel to her. But it is not discernible from the note itself when exactly the ill treatment began whether after or before the death of her elder son. The only younger son is studying in Plus one.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that his conduct is not very commendable. The family is now left with the petitioner and his son. Under such circumstances, it is felt that it is only just and proper that the petitioner should be released on bail especially for the safety of the surviving son. After having bestowed anxious consideration this petition is allowed as under :

1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

2. The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail.

3. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 am and 10 am until further orders. B.A.6383/13 4 4. The petitioner shall not leave the district without prior permission of the court concerned.

4. Petitioner shall not temper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

5. If any of the conditions is violated, the bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled and the court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available in law. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE // True copy // sou.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial