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.

Ullas. Vs. the State of KeralA.

Ullas. vs The State of KeralA.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 10, 2010
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/916808

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..No. 7704 of 2010
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

The respondent was introduced. The marriage was not arranged on, large scale for. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondent lived as husband and wife for more than two decades. The respondent treated her as a beloved wife, Even he got performed'. Even after performing the Shastipoorthi Shanthi ceremony, the petition...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 379; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 167(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ullas.

Advocate SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, Adv.

Respondent

The State of KeralA.

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 379; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 167(2)

Excerpt

.....act, 1954.because the hindu marriage act, 1955, had already come into force on 18-5-1955, and the marriage took place thereafter and it was hit by provisions of section 17 of the hindu marriage act. the petitioner in her evidence has clearly stated that she did not remember as to when the marriage took place. -the petitioner has stated in the course . stated: "respondent7 was retired by then". of the respondent. the petitioner in her evidence has stated that during the ceremony, the marriage rites were re-performed and that her husband (respondent) tied a 'tali' to her neck, sprinkled flowers on her and garlanded her. my sisters and their husbands, brothers and their wives, respondent's mother, paternal aunt, panduranga guru, respondent's brothers, and their wives, sisters and their family and other. all the ceremonies connected to the marriage were observed. if fact, though the respondent in his evidence denied that he tied another tali to the petitioner, . ex. d_5 is the marriage certificate. the parties, it appears, laboured under some notion that there was some infirmity in their marriage, because the respondent had another wife smt. sharada bai at that time under the special marriages act. that being so, the petitioner wife is entitled to restitution of conjugal rights as contemplated under section 9 of the hindu marriage act, 1955.1. the petitioner, who is the accused in crime no.593 of 2010 of sreekaryam police station, for an offence punishable under section 379 i.p.c., seeks his enlargement on bail. 2. the learned public prosecutor on instructions submitted that no final report has been filed even after 60 days of judicial custody of the petitioner. if so, by virtue of the proviso to sec.167 (2) cr.p.c. the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as of right. 3. accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond for `50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions:- 1. the petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all wednesdays. 2. the petitioner shall not enter the limits of sreekaryam police station except for the purpose of complying with condition no.1. 3. the petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution. 4. the petitioner shall make him available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer. 5. the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. 4. if the petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled.

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.593 of 2010 of Sreekaryam Police Station, for an offence punishable under Section 379 I.P.C., seeks his enlargement on bail.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that no final report has been filed even after 60 days of judicial custody of the petitioner. If so, by virtue of the proviso to Sec.167 (2) Cr.P.C. the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail as of right.

3. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond for `50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions:-

1. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays.

2. The petitioner shall not enter the limits of Sreekaryam Police Station except for the purpose of complying with Condition No.1.

3. The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

4. The petitioner shall make him available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

5. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

4. If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial