SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sarada Koonath vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 22ND PHALGUNA,
1941

Bail Appl..No.1489 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 247/2020 DATED 17-02-
2020 OF DISTRICT COURT SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY

CRIME NO.600/2019 OF Sreekandapuram Police Station ,
Kannur

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

SARADA KOONATH, AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.CHEMMARAN, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE,
AMBEDKAR COLONY, NIDIYENGA AMSOM,
KARAYATHUMCHAL, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT

BY ADV. SRI.B.MUHAMMED SHAHEEL

RESPONDENT/STATE:

STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
COCHIN-682031
(INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.600/2019
OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT)

OTHER PRESENT:

AMJAD ALI SR.PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.1489 OF 2020

..2..

Bail Appl..No.1489 OF 2020
——————————————-

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.

600 of 2019 of Sreekandapuram Police Station registered for

offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 294(b), 506 and

498A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is the mother-in-

law of the de facto complainant in the case. The accusation

against the accused in essence is that the petitioner has

subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty when they were

residing together.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. I have gone through the case diary. It is seen

that the dispute arose on account of the matrimonial discord

between the de facto complainant and her husband, the son

of the petitioner. In the circumstances, in the light of the

decision of the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa
Bail Appl..No.1489 OF 2020

..3..

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 ten
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.

(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
ds 12.03.2020

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