SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prajina.C.M vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 23RD POUSHA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.9198 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1892/2019 DATED 07-12-2019 OF
DISTRICT COURT SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY

PETITIONERS/2nd ACCUSED:

PRAJINA.C.M,
AGED 29 YEARS
W/O. K.P. BIJU, KEEYINTAPARAMBATH HOUSE,
PADIKACHAL, ULIYIL P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT 670 702.

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.

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER – SR.PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.9198 OF 2019

2

Bail Application No.9198 of 2019

———————————————-

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime

No.749 of 2019 Mattannur Police Station, Kannur District,

registered under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34

of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is the sister of one

Prejith. Accused nos.1 and 3 in the case are the parents of

Prejith. The wife of Prejith committed suicide on 02.11.2019.

The allegation is that the petitioner is responsible for the

suicide of the wife of Prejith.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has made

available the statement given by Prejth, on the basis of which

the crime is registered. The statement indicates that accused

nos.1 and 2 have subjected the deceased to cruelty while she
Bail Appl..No.9198 OF 2019

3

was residing with them. There is only solitary reference to the

petitioner in the said statement. Even the same appears to

me to be a vague one.

5. In the circumstances, having regard to the

totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and having

regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Siddharam

Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011

SC 312, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioner on the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall make herself available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer within
seven days from today. She shall also make herself
available for interrogation before the Investigating
Officer as and when directed by the Investigating
Officer in writing to do so;

ii) If the petitioner is arrested prior to, or after her
appearance before the Investigating Officer in
terms of this order, she shall be released from
custody on execution of a bond for Rs.25,000/- with
two sureties each for the like sum.

Bail Appl..No.9198 OF 2019

4

(iii) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate
the prosecution witnesses nor shall she attempt to
tamper with the evidence of the prosecution.

iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other
offence while on bail.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

PV

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