IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 7409 of 2018
CRIME NO. 1929/2018 OF NORTH PARUR POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM
1 MANJU M.R
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.RAJAPPAN, RAMA RAMA HOUSE, MANNAM, N.PARAVUR.
2 MANOJ M.R.,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O RAJAPPAN, RAMA RAMA HOUSE,MANNAM, N.PARAVUR.
(NOW RESIDING AT RAMA RAMA
BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682 031.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
N.PARAVUR POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 513.
SRI. D CHANDRASENAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No. 7409/2018 -2-
The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 1929 of 2018 of
North Paravur Police Station, Ernakulam for an offence punishable under
Section 498A r/w Section 34 IPC.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the accused has
harassed the de facto complainant, the wife of the first petitioner
mentally and physically demanding more dowry and gold.
3. The marriage between the first petitioner and the de facto
complainant, Vijitha was solemnized on 09.02.2014 and they were
residing in the matrimonial home along with their aged mother. The de
facto complainant is not interested to reside in the joint family and she
always insisted for a separate house and is reluctant to look after the
first petitioner’s mother, which caused to strain their relationship. On
14.09.2018, the de faco complainant has assaulted the petitioner’s aged
mother and though a complaint was preferred, no action was taken by
the police. Thereafter, the first petitioner has preferred O.P.(Divorce)
No. 2102 of 2018 before the Family Court, Ernakulam. On receipt of the
notice, she preferred the present complaint.
4. I have gone through the case diary and it is revealed that it is
only allegations raised against the petitioners that they have
manhandled her. Apart from that no serious injuries were sustained to
the de facto complainant. There is no evidence to prove that she was
B.A. No. 7409/2018 -3-
admitted in the hospital. The case is especially an outcome of
matrimonial dispute. Therefore, I find that it is just and proper to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
In the result, this application is allowed and the 2 nd respondent is
directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest on
execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each
with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
B.A. No. 7409/2018 -4-