Saturday, June 1, 2013

estranged since year 2007 wife files 498a on many family members in 2012 just to harass




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/28TH BHADRA 1934

Bail Appl..No. 6864 of 2012 ()
 
(CRIME NO.789/12 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT)
........

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:
 

1. K.MANOJ, AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SREEDHARAN
LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY KIZHAKKUMBAD,
NEAR KODAKKETH TEMPLE, KINATTINKARA P.O. VELLUR,
KANNUR DISTRICT.

2. K. NARAYANI, , AGED 65 YEARS,
W/O. LATE SREEDHARAN,
LAKSHAMVEEDU COLONY KIZHAKKUMBAD,
NEAR KODAKKATH TEMPLE, KINATTINKARA, P.O. VELLUR,
KANNUR DISTRICT.

3. K. ANITHA, W/O.SURESAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
BEHIND JAWAHAR VAYANASALA,
P.O. VELLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
 

STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH


THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19 09 2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Kss



P.BHAVADASAN, J.

B.A. No.6864 of 2012

Dated this the 19th day of September, 2012


O R D E R

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.789/12 of Payyannur Police Station for having committed offences punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 18.2.2007 and a male child was born in that wedlock. The petitioners pointed out that first petitioner and defacto complainant last resided together till November 2007 and thereafter they have been residing separately. Referring to the complaint, on the basis of which a crime was registered, and the nature of allegations it is claimed that no specific instance of cruelty is pointed out against the petitioners. The petitioners would point out that the complaint is filed only to harass and humiliate them. Therefore they seek anticipatory bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition pointing out that the investigation is at an infant stage.

4. Considering the nature of allegations made in the complaint and also the various factors it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction can be exercised in favour of the petitioners.

The petition is allowed as follows:

1) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 26.9.2012, who after interrogation shall produce the petitioners before the JFCM court concerned, which court on application being moved by the petitioners shall release them on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.15,000/ (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the JFCM concerned.

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

3) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him.

4) The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses.

5) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, of being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law.

P.BHAVADASAN,

Judge.

okb.