Allowed

Krishnamma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Oct 2016Bail Appl./6235/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for a 65-year-old mother-in-law accused of insulting and pushing a minor grandson and allegedly assaulting his mother. The court found no necessity for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is released on bail on a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with an undertaking to cooperate with the investigation.

Krishnamma Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/15TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6235 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 888/2016 OF KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

KRISHNAMMA,

¶9

AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRANATHA PANIKKER, KRISHNA VILASOM, PATHIYOOR PADINJARE MURI, PATHIYOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 682 031.

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KAREELAKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶14

*** ADDL. 3RD RESPONDENT:**

¶15

DEEPA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.ANIL C.PANICKER, KRISHNA VILASOM, PATHIYOORMURI, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR

¶17

*** ADDL. 3RD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 7.10.2016 IN CRL.M.A NO.9705/2016.**

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶21

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

¶22

B.A No.6235 of 2016

¶23

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

¶24

Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2016

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.888/2016 of Kareelakulangara Police Station registered under Sections 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.

¶27

The prosecution case is that on 3.8.2016 at 7.30 pm., the petitioner pushed her grandson while he was playing beneath the staircase of their house. The petitioner also uttered filthy language against the minor defacto complainant.

¶28

The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶29

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent has submitted that there are so many disputes between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, who is the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, in respect of the family

¶30

¶31

B.A No.6235 of 2016

¶32

property. The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent has further submitted that the minor defacto complainant sustained fracture of his hand in the incident. However, it appears from the wound certificate appended to the case diary that the minor child had only tenderness, which is nothing but the feeling of pain. No external injury on the minor was also noted by the doctor. The child is aged 12 years. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the 3^rd respondent. It appears that there exits disputes between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law. It appears that the child has been unnecessarily dragged into their dispute. The petitioner is aged 65 years. Annexure A1 would show that a Division Bench of this Court as per order dated 21.6.2016 in W.P (C) No.19630/2016 permitted the petitioner herein and her husband to continue in the ground floor of the present residence. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kareelakulangara Police Station was also directed to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner and her husband for their peaceful living in the said portion of the house. The 4^th respondent in the said writ petition is the 3^rd respondent herein. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is not a case where custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for

¶33

B.A No.6235 of 2016 3

¶34

the progress of investigation of the case. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

¶35

In the result, this application stands allowed, and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.888/2016 of Kareelakulangara Police Station on condition of the petitioner executing a self bond for 20,000/- (Rupees twenty₹ thousand only) and on further condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the investigation.

¶36

Sd/B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶37

//True Copy//

¶38

P.A to Judge

¶39

Krishnamma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnamma 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

Sajeev Vs State of Kerala

Sujith Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Faisal T.T. Vs the State of Kerala

Roy J.Vayalat Vs State of Kerala

Ajayan Vs State of Kerala

Manu Vs State of Kerala