Disposed

Mani v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Mar 2010Bail Appl./296/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed by accused persons charged with kidnapping. The Public Prosecutor submitted that no case was made out as the complainant's daughter had not been abducted. The court accepted this submission and closed the application without granting specific bail relief in the order text.

What did the court decide?

The Bail Application was closed after recording the Public Prosecutor's submission that no case was made out against the petitioners.

Mani Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 296 of 2010() ---------------------------CRIME NO.22/2010 OF THENMALA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶5

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2

¶6

¶7

MANI, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MUNIYANDI, RESIDING AT ESTATE QUARTERS NO.177, AMBANADU ESTATE, KAZHUTHURUTHY.P.O, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

SURESH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MUNIYANDI, RESIDING AT ESTATE QUARTERS NO.177, AMBANADU ESTATE, KAZHUTHURUTHY.P.O, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SMT.MERIL MUTHU P.JOHN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THENMALA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶17

B.A.No.296 of 2010

¶18

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2010

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.22 of 2010 of Thenmala Police Station, Kollam District.

¶21

The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The de facto complainant alleged that his daughter was abducted by the accused persons.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor, on written instructions, submitted the following: The daughter of the de facto complainant, who was allegedly abducted, appeared before Thenmala Police Station on 27.1.2010. Her statement was recorded. She stated before the police that she left her house due to the harassment made by the inmates of her house. She went to the house of a relative. Later, she went along with one Suseela, daughter of Susa Mary, on her own volition. It is further stated in the statement that she knew from the television

¶24

BA No.296/2010

¶25

¶26

that the de facto complainant had put forward a case that the accused had abducted the daughter of the de facto complainant. She stated before the police that the accused persons had not abducted her.

¶27

In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that no case is made out against the petitioners and the police have no intention to arrest the petitioners. The submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor is recorded and the Bail Application is accordingly closed.

¶28

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶29

csl

Mani v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen Vs State of Kerala

A.K.Suresh and Ors. Vs State of Kerala

Sanil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Justin Vs State of Kerala

Jacob Tomy Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Kumar Vs S.H.O