mechanical routine bail application & bail granted in 498a case, Kerala HC ; 60 yr old woman accused

Thoughts

• See how a 60 year old woman / mother is accused in 498a
• This is how women friendly laws are being misused
• Since no father is accused it is possible a widow, single mother who has raised her son
• Now it COULD be that DIL is taking vengence on that mother and has filed 498a
• very important to note that the court hardly has an discussions and allows anticipatory as a matter of routine !!!
  

case from JUDIS nic site


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/6TH ASWINA 1934

Bail Appl..No. 7065 of 2012 ()

(CRIME NO.435/2012 THRIKKUNNAPUZHA POLICE STATION,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT)


PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

          1. SANAL, AGED 32 YEARS
              S/O.SADANANDAN, PARAMBIL HOUSE
              KIZHAKKEKKARA VADAKKU MURI
              THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.

          2. PADMAVALLY, AGED 60 YEARS,
              W/O.SADANANDAN, PARAMBIL HOUSE,
              KIZHAKKEKKARA VADAKKU MURI,
              THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA VILLAGE,
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
                           SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
                           SMT.T.J.SEEMA


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

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

             R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

BP



      P.BHAVADASAN, J.

     B.A. No.7065 of 2012

    Dated this the 28th day of September, 2012


 O R D E R

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail.

2.   Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.435/2012 of Thrikkunnapuzha Police Station, Alappuzha District, for having committed offence punishable under Section 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.    It is pointed out that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the case with ulterior motive. They claim that they are innocent.

3. It is seen from the records that the marriage between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant took place on 22.12.2008.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. The investigation is at the infant stage.

 5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records made available, it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners.

6. The petition is allowed as follows:

1)The petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on or before 9.10.2012, who after interrogation shall produce the petitioners before the JFCM court concerned, who on application for bail filed 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 each 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 make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer as and when required by them.

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 them in law.


P.BHAVADASAN,

  JUDGE