SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mahesh K.S vs State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 24TH ASWINA, 1941

Bail Appl.No.7153 OF 2019

[AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1267/2019 DATED 07-08-2019 OF SESSIONS
COURT,THALASSERY

CRIME NO.175/2019 OF Kudiyanmala Police Station, Kannur]

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

MAHESH K.S.,
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O.SANKARAN KUTTY, KUTTIYATH HOUSE, VALIYA
AREEKKAMALA, AREEKKAMALA P.O., ERUVESSI AMSOM,
TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.V.A.SATHEESH
SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA THROUGH S.H.O.KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT.

OTHER PRESENT:

SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M S BREEZE

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

16.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO.7153 OF 2019

:-2-:

ORDER

Dated this the 16th day of October,2019

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed

under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for

short ‘Cr.P.C.’)

2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime

No.175/2019 of Kudiyanmala Police Station, Kannnur District

registered for the offences punishable under Sections

420,498A,494,120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (for short ‘the IPC’).

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the de facto

complainant, who is the wife of the first accused was

subjected to physical and mental cruelty demanding more

money and gold ornaments from her. According to the

prosecution, her gold ornaments were taken away by the first

accused and those were not returned to her, as promised.

Therefore, the de facto complainant was compelled to take

loan from the Micro Finance and that amount was also

appropriated by the first accused. It is further alleged that

during the subsistence of a valid marriage between the first

accused and the de facto complaint, with the instigation of

accused 2 and 3, the first accused married another girl
B.A.NO.7153 OF 2019

:-3-:

namely Chinchumol on 20.6.2019.

4. Heard both sides. I have perused the case diary.

5. Petitioners 1 to 3 moved Crl.M.C.No. 1267/2019

before the court of Sessions, Thalassery. Upon considering

the stage of investigation and gravity of the offence, the

learned Sessions Judge is of the view that the first accused is

not entitled to get anticipatory bail. However, anticipatory

bail was granted to the second and third accused on

conditions.

6. On going through the facts of the case, it is clear that

the dispute between the parties is purely a matrimonial

dispute. The offences under Sections 494 and 498A of the

IPC are coming under Chapter XX and Chapter XXA of the

IPC. Going by the Schedule I attached to the Code of

Criminal Procedure, it is clear that the offence under Section

494, that is marrying again during the lifetime of a husband

or wife is punishable with imprisonment for a period of seven

years and with fine. The offence is non-cognizable and

bailable in nature. Section 498A provides subjecting a

married woman to cruelty, which is punishable with

imprisonment for three years and also with fine. Merely

because the offence under Section 498A is non-bailable, in
B.A.NO.7153 OF 2019

:-4-:

the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not correct to

deny pre-arrest bail to the first petitioner. The dispute

involved in this case is purely matrimonial in nature.

7. Though prosecution has alleged an offence under

Section 420 of IPC, it appears that necessary ingredients to

attract the said offence are absolutely lacking in this case.

In the result,the bail application stands allowed and it

is ordered as follows:-

1) The petitioner shall be released on bail in
the event of his arrest in connection with
Crime No.175/2019 of Kudiyanmala Police
Station, Kannur District on his executing
a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Thousand only) with two solvent
sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the investigating officer.

2) The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when
required till the final report is filed.

3) The petitioner shall not in any manner
intimidate or influence the prosecution
witnesses or interfere with the
investigation.

4) If the petitioner violates any of the above
conditions of bail, it is open to the Court
B.A.NO.7153 OF 2019

:-5-:

having jurisdiction over the case to cancel
his bail without any further orders from
this Court but in accordance with law.

Sd/-

N.ANIL KUMAR,
JUDGE

MBS/
B.A.NO.7153 OF 2019

:-6-:

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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