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.

Aliyar vs State of Kerala

Aliyar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 10, 2022
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1441775

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./251/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Aliyar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....is the accused in crime no.6/2022 ofkunnathunadu police station, alleging commission of offences under sections 324 and 31(1) of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act')3. the de facto complainant is the wife of the petitioner. she hadobtained an order under the act, following which she was residing with the petitioner and her son. it is alleged that on 2.1.2022, the petitioner questioned the de facto complainant as to with whom she was talking over phone and snatched away the phone and hit her on the left side of her forehead, below her eyes and on her neck and thereby he committed the offences alleged against him.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitionerhas not committed any offence as alleged. it is submitted that the de facto complainant has put up a false case only to make it appear that the petitioner had violated the order passed under the provisions of the act. it is submitted that the attempt is only to see that the petitioner is accused of a non-bailableoffence. it is submitted that the petitioner does not intend to violate any orderpassed under the act.5. heard the learned public prosecutor also.6. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations and taking into account the undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will notb.a.no.251/2022 3 violate any order passed under the provisions of the act, i am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.7. in the result, this application is allowed. it is directed that thepetitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in crime no.6/2022 of kunnathunadu police station subject to the following conditions:-(i) petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum of rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 251 OF 2022 CRIME NO.06/2022 OF Kunnathunadu Police Station, Ernakulam PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ALIYAR,AGED 66 YEARS SON OF ASSINAR, PILAPPALLI HOUSE, CHENGARA KARA, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE, PATTIMATTOM P.O., KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683562 BY ADVS. K.R.PRATHISH S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD) RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 68203 SRI.M.C. ASHI (P.P.) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.251/2022 2

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.6/2022 of

Kunnathunadu Police Station, alleging commission of offences under Sections 324 and 31(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')

3. The de facto complainant is the wife of the petitioner. She had

obtained an order under the Act, following which she was residing with the petitioner and her son. It is alleged that on 2.1.2022, the petitioner questioned the de facto complainant as to with whom she was talking over phone and snatched away the phone and hit her on the left side of her forehead, below her eyes and on her neck and thereby he committed the offences alleged against him.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has not committed any offence as alleged. It is submitted that the de facto complainant has put up a false case only to make it appear that the petitioner had violated the order passed under the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that the attempt is only to see that the petitioner is accused of a non-bailable

offence. It is submitted that the petitioner does not intend to violate any order

passed under the Act.

5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations and taking into account the undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will not

B.A.No.251/2022 3 violate any order passed under the provisions of the Act, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

7. In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the

petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Crime No.6/2022 of Kunnathunadu Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.6/2022 of Kunnathunadu Police Station at 10 a.m., on 18.3.2022 and thereafter whenever called upon to do so;

(iii) Petitioner shall not violate any order passed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005;

(iv) Petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.6/2022 of Kunnathunadu Police Station;

(v) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail. If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.6/2022 of Kunnathunadu Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE acd B.A.No.251/2022 4 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 251/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 ANNEXURE A1

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial