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.

Pradeep vs State of Kerala

Pradeep vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 30, 2023
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1332014

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
Case Number
Bail Appl./451/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pradeep

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....petitioners are the accused, nos.1 to 3, in crime no.2163/2022 of thiruvalla police station, which was registered for the offences punishable under sections 498a, 323 and 34 of the indian penal code. the 1 st petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant, and the 2 nd and 3rd petitioners are the mother and brother of the 1st petitioner, respectively.2. the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainantwas solemnized in the year 2014. the prosecution case is that, later, the petitioners subjected the defacto complainant to physical and mental harassment by demanding more dowry. the specific instance of assault pointed out by the defacto complainant occurred on 06.10.2022. this application is submitted in such circumstances seeking anticipatory bail. the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false and that they are falsely implicated for the offences.3. on the other the learned public prosecutor would oppose the said contentions.4. after going through the first information statement and otherrelevant records, i am of the view that it is in the best interest of justice that the cooperation of the petitioners for investigation is ensured, for which a direction has to be issued to them to appear before the investigation officer. this is because, from the materials placed before me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners appears to be not necessary. in such circumstances, the bail application is disposed of, directing the petitioners to surrender before the investigation officer within two weeks.in the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:- i the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting themselves to interrogation. ii after interrogation, the petitioners shall be released on bail on the same day of surrender upon the petitioners executing a bond for rs 1,00,000/- with two.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 10TH MAGHA, 1944 CRIME NO.2163/2022 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: 1 PRADEEP AGED 40 YEARS 2 OMANA 3 SOMAN BY ADVS. T.P.PRADEEP R.K.PRASANTH MINIKUMARY M.V. JIJO JOSEPH P.K.SATHEES KUMAR RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV M P PRASHNATH - PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused, Nos.1 to 3, in Crime No.2163/2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 1 st petitioner is the husband of the defacto complainant, and the 2 nd and 3rd petitioners are the mother and brother of the 1st petitioner, respectively.

2. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant

was solemnized in the year 2014. The prosecution case is that, later, the petitioners subjected the defacto complainant to physical and mental harassment by demanding more dowry. The specific instance of assault pointed out by the defacto complainant occurred on 06.10.2022. This application is submitted in such circumstances seeking anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false and that they are falsely implicated for the offences.

3. On the other the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the said contentions.

4. After going through the First Information Statement and other

relevant records, I am of the view that it is in the best interest of justice that the cooperation of the petitioners for investigation is ensured, for which a direction has to be issued to them to appear before the investigation officer. This is because, from the materials placed before me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners appears to be not necessary. In such circumstances, the bail application is disposed of, directing the petitioners to surrender before the investigation officer within two weeks.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:- i The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting themselves to interrogation. ii After interrogation, the petitioners shall be released on bail on the same day of surrender upon the petitioners executing a bond for Rs 1,00,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. iii The petitioners shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting themselves to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded. iv The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. every Wednesday until further orders. v The petitioners shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required. vi The petitioners shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail. vii The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court. viii The petitioners shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE scs

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial