SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Damodaran vs State Of Kerala on 27 February, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.653 OF 2020

CRIME NO.749/2019 OF MATTANNORE POLICE STATION, KANNUR

PETITIONERS/1 AND 3RD ACCUSED:

1 DAMODARAN,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. KANNAN, PRAJITH NIVAS, CHAVASSERY AMSOM,
VELIYAMBRA DESOM, P.R NAGAR P.O, IRIITY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT.

2 USHA C.M,
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O. DAMODARAN, -DO-

BY ADV. SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031

2 S.H.O,
MATTANNUR POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT 670 571

BY SRI.AMJAD ALI, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Application No.653 of 2020

2

Bail Application No.653 of 2020

———————————————-

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime

No.749 of 2019 of Mattannur Police Station registered for offences

punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code. The daughter-in-law of the petitioners

committed suicide on 02.11.2019. The allegation in the case is

that the petitioners have abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as

also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed

out that this court had granted anticipatory bail to the daughter of

the petitioners, who was the second accused in the case. It was

also pointed out by the learned counsel that the allegations

against all the accused are more or less same.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has made available

the statement given by the husband of the deceased, the son of
Bail Application No.653 of 2020

3

petitioners 1 and 2. The statement indicates that the deceased

has indicated in her whatsapp status that the petitioners are

responsible for her death.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and

circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is not a fit

case for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

DK

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation