IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 23RD MAGHA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.8873 OF 2019
CRIME NO.775/2019 OF Paravoor Police Station , Kollam
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
LALITHAMBIKA AMMA,
AGED 70 YEARS
W/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, KALARIYIL VEEDU, REVATHY,
POZHIKKARA, PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691301.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PRATHEESH.P
SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI
SMT.S.SEETHA
SMT.ANJANA KANNATH
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691301.
SRI AMJAD ALI- SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.02.2020, THE COURT ON 12.02.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.8873/2019
2
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
************************
B.A.No.8873 of 2019
————————————————-
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2020
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section
438 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner is the second accused in the case
registered as Crime No. 775 of 2019 of the Paravoor Police
Station under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The first accused in the case is the husband of the de
facto complainant. The petitioner is the mother of the first
accused. The marriage between the first accused and the de
facto complainant was solemnized on 24.04.2017. The allegation
against the petitioner is that she had obtained the gold
ornaments of the de facto complainant and she behaved towards
the de facto complainant and treated her in a cruel manner and
B.A.No.8873/2019
3
that she drove the de facto complainant out of her house.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the
learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. There is no allegation that the petitioner had physically
assaulted the de facto complainant or caused hurt to her.
Considering the totality of the allegations raised against the
petitioner and the other circumstances of the case, it appears
that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary to
have an effective investigation in the case. The prosecution has
no apprehension that the petitioner would abscond on getting
bail. She is a lady aged 68 years. Considering all these aspects,
I find that the discretion of the court can be exercised in favour
of the petitioner to grant her the benefit of pre-arrest bail.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed and it is ordered as
follows:
(1) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a
bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with
two sureties for the like amount in the event of her arrest by the
B.A.No.8873/2019
4
police in Crime No.775 of 2019 of Paravoor Police Station.
(2) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating
officer as and when directed by him in writing to do so.
(3) The petitioner shall not in any manner intimidate or
influence the de facto complainant or other prosecution witnesses
in the case.
(4) If the petitioner violates any of the conditions of bail, it
is open to the court having jurisdiction over the case to cancel
her bail without any further orders of this Court, but in
accordance with law.
(sd/-)
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE
jsr
True Copy
PS to Judge
