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.

Manoj Vs. State of Kerala

Manoj vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 30, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1159298

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
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manoj

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....on3007-2014, the court on the same day passed the following: pj v.k.mohanan, j =========================== b.a no. 5573 of 2014 ============================ dated this the 30th day of july, 2014 order petitioner, who is the husband of the de facto complainant in crime no.1055/2014 of anjalumoodu police station preferred the above application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure.2. the petitioner as well as the de facto complainant are the husband and wife whose marriage was solemnized on 28.08.2005 and a child born in the said wedlock. the further prosecution allegation is that while they were residing together, on 05.07.2014, a quarrel was occurred among them and it is alleged that the petitioner caught hold on her hair and gave a blow by using a stick and the said incident was occurred when the petitioner declined the request of the wife for purchasing a car. thus, according to the b.a no.5573/2014 2 prosecution the accused has committed the offences punishable u/s 498a, 294(b), 341, 323 and 324 of the indian penal code.3. heard the learned counsel for petitioners as well as the learned public prosecutor.4. the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is every chance for settlement of the dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, who are husband and wife, and, therefore, it is only just and proper to grant anticipatory bail.5. the learned public prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident was occurred as part of family dispute when the wife demanded for the purchase of a car.6. having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and considering the trivial nature of the allegation, i am of the view that this petition can be allowed, however, subject to conditions. b.a no.5573/2014 3 in the result, this petition is allowed and, accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in crime no.1055/2014 of anjalumoodu police station, he.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE30H DAY OF JULY20148TH SRAVANA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 5573 of 2014 ------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1055/2014 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION , KOLLAM ---------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- MANOJ, AGED40YEARS, S/O. PIOUS, ANNADALE, NAMBARATH JUNCTION, KADAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/STATE: --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031 (CRIME NO. 1055/2014 OF ANJALUMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT).

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANJALUMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691001, (CRIME NO. 1055/2014 OF ANJALUMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON3007-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ V.K.MOHANAN, J =========================== B.A No. 5573 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 30th day of July, 2014 ORDER

Petitioner, who is the husband of the de facto complainant in Crime No.1055/2014 of Anjalumoodu Police Station preferred the above application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner as well as the de facto complainant are the husband and wife whose marriage was solemnized on 28.08.2005 and a child born in the said wedlock. The further prosecution allegation is that while they were residing together, on 05.07.2014, a quarrel was occurred among them and it is alleged that the petitioner caught hold on her hair and gave a blow by using a stick and the said incident was occurred when the petitioner declined the request of the wife for purchasing a car. Thus, according to the B.A No.5573/2014 2 prosecution the accused has committed the offences punishable u/s 498A, 294(b), 341, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is every chance for settlement of the dispute between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, who are husband and wife, and, therefore, it is only just and proper to grant anticipatory bail.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident was occurred as part of family dispute when the wife demanded for the purchase of a car.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and considering the trivial nature of the allegation, I am of the view that this petition can be allowed, however, subject to conditions. B.A No.5573/2014 3 In the result, this petition is allowed and, accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.1055/2014 of Anjalumoodu Police Station, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer on the following further conditions: i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in the above crime on every second Saturday. ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and try to influence any witnesses. iii) Petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation. Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE vdv //True Copy// P.Ato Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial