SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vinesh vs State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

WEDNESDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 7657 of 2018

CRIME NO. 749/2018 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION , THRISSUR

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 VINESH,
AGED 35, S/O.VIJAYAN, THANDAYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PAPPINIVATTOM, KAZHUVILANGU, MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR
DISTRICT.

2 USHA,
AGED 62, W/O.VIJAYAN, THANDAYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PAPPINIVATTOM, KAZHUVILANGU, MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR
DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.
SRI.U.M.HASSAN

RESPONDENT/STATE:

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

SRI. D CHANDRASENAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No. 7657/2018 -2-

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 749 of 2018 of

Mathilakam Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 498A

IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. The crime was registered on the basis of the

statement given by the de facto complainant. The allegation against the

petitioners is that the de facto complainant, who is the wife of the first

petitioner, has been ill treated by the petitioners. The second petitioner

is the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the

case. It is also submitted that the first petitioner has filed Annexure 1

complaint before the Mathilakam Police Station stating that his identity

cards and other valuable cards, including his passport has been taken

away by the de facto complainant.

3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the CD

file. The wound certificate shows that the de facto complainant has

sustained minor injuries only. Moreover, the case is an outcome of the

matrimonial dispute. Eventhough the reunion of the parties cannot be

ruled out, in order to settle the matrimonial dispute, I find that it is just

and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

In the result, this application is allowed and the SHO,
B.A. No. 7657/2018 -3-

Mathilakam Police Station, Thrissur 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

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