Bail application allowed for two accused charged with 498A IPC. Petitioners faced joint accusation with each other; second wife impleaded. Bail granted contingent upon surrender and reporting.
Petitioners granted pre-arrest bail subject to surrender, reporting every Wednesday, and restriction on interfering with evidence or witnesses.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
SATURDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/13TH ASWINA, 1935
Bail Appl..No. 6250 of 2013 ()
CRIME NO. 965/2013 OF BALIAPATTOM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1. T.P.NARAYANAN, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, THAZHEPADIKKAL, KALARIVATHUKKAL BALIAPATTOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2. T.P.VASUDEVAN, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, THAZHEPADIKKAL, KALARIVATHUKKAL BALIAPATTOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER BY ADVS.SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE
RESPONDENT / STATE & COMPLAINANT :
1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BALIAPATTOM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.
*ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED
2. SMT. V.I. YAMUNA, D/O. HARIDAS, VADAKKE ILLOM THIRUANCHERYKAVU, KUTHUPARAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT.
*ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27/9/2013 IN
CRL.M.A. 7335/13 IN IA BA NO. 6250/13.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-10-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
B.A.No.6250 of 2013
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2013 O R D E R
The petitioners, who are brothers and are partners of several concerns, stand accused of having committed offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. A crime was registered based on a complaint by the wife of the 1st petitioner, who has been impleaded as the additional second respondent herein.
B.A.No.6250 of 2013
2
4 This Court by order dated 12.9.2013, passed an interim order of bail directing the petitioners to implead the de facto complainant and in pursuant to the same, the second respondent has been impleaded and she has filed a counter affidavit also.
5 In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is seen asserted that she was unable to explain the conduct of the first petitioner. She has also produced a complaint stated to have been filed by the eldest daughter before the Superintendent of Police, Kannur, which according to the second respondent, would show that the first petitioner tried to sexually assault her. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the second respondent that the petitioners are not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
B.A.No.6250 of 2013
3
which now alleged to be as a result of threat and force exerted by the first petitioner. It is significant to notice that there are no allegations as against the second petitioner and the petitioners claimed that he had been simply implicated, because he is the brother of the first petitioner and also a partner of the firm. Even in the counter affidavit, there are no serious allegations of cruelty meted out by the first petitioner. After having bestowed anxious consideration to various aspects, this application is allowed on the following conditions:
B.A.No.6250 of 2013
4
AMV/
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.P.NARAYANAN
T.P.VASUDEVAN
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
V.I. YAMUNA
P. BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
