Dismissed

Binod Abraham and Others v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Nov 2011Bail Appl./7032/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application. Petitioners went abroad without appearing before the Mediation Centre or informing the Court, claiming they sought interim relief merely to stay temporarily. The court held non-appearance precludes withdrawal or prosecution of the application.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were directed not to prosecute the bail application and their application was dismissed.

Binod Abraham and Others Vs the State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7032 of 2011() ---------------------------------(CRIME NO.1051/2011 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION)

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1, 2 AND 3.

¶7

-----------------------------------------

¶8

1. BINOD ABRAHAM @ BINU, THYKADAVIL, THENGELI P.O., KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA.

¶9

2. NIRMALA ABRAHAM, W/O.A.P.ABRAHAM, ETTONNIL HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY OVERBRIDGE, KALLISSERRY, CHENGANNOOR.

¶10

3. A.P.ABRAHAM, ETTONNIL HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY OVERBRIDGE, KALLISSERRY, CHENGANNOOR.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):COMPLAINANT

¶13

--------------------------------------

¶14

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

¶15

ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED

¶16

2. NISHA BINOD, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O. BINOD ABRAHAM, THYKADAVIL HOUSE, THENGELI, KUTTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA.

¶17

R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10/11/2011 IN CRL. MA. NO.5890/2011

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

svs

¶21

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶22

Bail Appln.No.7032 of 2011

¶23

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2011

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1051 of 2011 of Thiruvalla Police Station.

¶26

The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

When the Bail Application came up for admission an interim order not to arrest the petitioner was passed on 24/08/2011. Later, on 02^nd September, 2011, the following order was passed:-

¶28

“It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the de facto complainant that if the matter is posted before the Mediation Centre, there is every likelihood of settlement of the disputes. Post before the Mediation Centre.

¶29

There will be an interim direction not to arrest the petitioners in connection with the Crime, till the matter is considered before the Mediation Centre.”

¶30

Bail Appln.No.7032/2011

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant that, though the de facto complainant appeared, the petitioners did not appear. Accordingly, the bail application came up for hearing.

¶33

When the Bail Application was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the bail application. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that a petition for restitution for conjugal rights was filed by the de facto complainant and she very much would like to continue the marital relationship. It is also submitted that she does not want to see her husband to be put in jail.

¶34

Having obtained an interim order directing the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre, the petitioners left India without showing the courtesy to inform the Court. It is to be presumed that they filed this Bail Application and got the interim order only to remain in India for some time and thereafter to go abroad. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners cannot be allowed to withdraw the bail application. As held in Saudabeevi Vs. State : 2011 (4) KLT 52 = 2011

¶35

Bail Appln.No.7032/2011

¶36

: 3 :

¶37

(3) KHC 795, a person cannot remain abroad and prosecute a bail application for anticipatory bail without coming to India. Therefore the petitioners have no right to prosecute the bail application. They did not appear before the Mediation Centre. They did not inform the Court about their intention to go abroad.

¶38

The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.

¶39

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶40

skj

Binod Abraham and Others v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Abraham and Others v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Babu Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar @Ani Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar T N Vs State of Kerala

Achamma Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh Vs State of Kerala