Allowed

Manikandan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2016Bail Appl./8768/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by an accused under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC. The court noted the lack of scientific evidence regarding alleged criminal intent in causing miscarriage and the potential hindrance to reconciliation if the petitioner were jailed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.30,000 with two sureties and conditions not to intimidate witnesses or merge guilty of other offences.

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8768 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1147/2016 OF PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

MANIKANDAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. RAMANKUTTY, AMBILI HOUSE, KINASSERY, KANNADI POST, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI- 682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT. REKHA C NAIR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-122016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶15

¶16

B.A. No.8768 of 2016

¶17

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17^th day of December 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime

¶20

No.1147/2014 of Palakkad Police Station registered under

¶21

Sections 498A and 313 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

¶22

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated

¶23

thus.:- The petitioner married the de-facto complainant on 25.10.201 as per their customary rites and thereafter, they started residing as husband and wife in her matrimonial home. While so, the petitioner and the other accused started treating the de-facto complainant with mental and physical cruelty demanding more money from her house. The first petitioner also compelled her to

¶24

BA 8768/2016 2

¶25

undergo forceful miscarriage.

¶26

The petitioner has filed this application praying for the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶27

Heard.

¶28

It appears from Annexure.B that the Sessions Court, Palakkad had granted the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to accused Nos.2 to 5 in the crime. The learned Sessions Judge found that even though there was an allegation that the de-facto complainant was subjected to consume huge quantity of pinapple with the intent to undergo mis carriage, the scientific effect of such administration of pineapple was yet to be brought out. The certificate appended to the Case Diary would show that the de-facto complainant was admitted in Thankam hospital on 31.12.2015 at 8.30 a.m. with incomplete abortion and

¶29

BA 8768/2016 3

¶30

thereafter D & C, was done at the hospital. Even though

¶31

the abortion was conducted on 31.12.2015, she had lodged complaint against her consent for abortion only on 29.10.2016. It appears from the above said certificate that the abortion was conducted as there was incomplete abortion when she was admitted in the hospital. There is no material other than the ipsedixit of the de-facto complainant to indicate that she was made to eat pinapple with the intent to cause mis-carriage. The petitioner is the husband of the de-facto complainant . The dispute involved in this case is a matrimonial dispute. Therefore, if the petitioner is sent to jail, there is likelihood that the chance for reconciliation will be hampered. For the said reason, I am inclined to allow this application.

¶32

In the result, this application stands allowed and the

¶33

BA 8768/2016

¶34

¶35

respondent is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the

¶36

event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.1147/2016 of Palakkad Town South Police Station on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House officer, Palakkad Town South Police Station before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the further condition that the petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation. Needless to state that the petitioner shall not

¶37

get involved in any offence when he is on bail.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶40

dl/19.12.2016

¶41

// True Copy // PA to Judge

Manikandan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikandan 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

Kolateri Purushothaman Vs P.B.Mohan Kumar

V.K.Dharmadas Vs Shaji

Aji Vs State

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan.M Vs State of Kerala

Bijili Varghese Vs State of Kerala