SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manju M.R vs State Of Kerala on 15 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

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

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

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
HOUSE,POYKATTUSSERY,CHENGAMANADU,ERNAKULAM).

BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

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-

ORDER

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

Investigating Officer.

sd/-

ANNIE JOHN,
JUDGE.

Rv
B.A. No. 7409/2018 -4-

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