SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vahitha P.K. 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.1556 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 71/2020 DATED 20-02-
2020 OF DISTRICT COURT SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR

CRIME NO.16/2020 OF Areacode Police Station , Malappuram

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 3:

1 VAHITHA P.K., AGED 60 YEARS
W/O. LATE KADAR ALI, MARATTIKKAL HOUSE,
THAIKAD P.O. GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680
104.

2 LIJITHA.M.K., AGED 40 YEARS
D/O. LATE BSHEER,
MARATTIKKAL HOUSE, THAIKAD P.O. GURUVAYUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 104.

BY ADVS.
SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI
SMT.T.RASINI

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

OTHER PRESENT:

SANTHOSH PETER 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.1556 OF 2020

..2..

Bail Appl..No.1556 OF 2020
—————————————-

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime

No. 16 of 2020 of Arecode Police Station registered for offences

punishable under Sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal

Code. The first petitioner is the mother-in-law of the de facto

complainant and the second petitioner is the sister-in-law of

the de facto complainant. The accusation against the

petitioners in essence is that they have subjected the de facto

complainant to cruelty when they were residing together.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

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 first

accused. In the circumstances, in the light of the decision of

the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State
Bail Appl..No.1556 OF 2020

..3..

of Maharashtra (AIR 2011 SC 312), I am inclined to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the following conditions:

i) The petitioners shall make themselves
available for interrogation before the Investigating
Officer within ten days from today. They shall also
make themselves available for interrogation before the
Investigating Officer as and when directed by the
Investigating Officer in writing to do so;

ii) If the petitioners are arrested prior to, or after
their appearance before the Investigating Officer in
terms of this order, they shall be released from
custody on execution of bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties
each for the like sum.

iii) The petitioners shall not influence or
intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they
attempt to tamper with the evidence of the
prosecution.

iv) The petitioners 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 *


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