Allowed

Janaki P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jan 2017Bail Appl./152/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for two accused in a case involving the suicide of the second petitioner's wife and child, noting doubts about the applicability of Section 306 IPC and clear non-applicability of Section 302 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with bond of Rs. 50,000 each and two sureties; conditions imposed for interrogation and restriction on travel and witness interference.

Janaki P Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2017/3RD MAGHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 152 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1246/2015 OF PARIYARAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1. JANAKI. P., W/O. CHANDRANKUNJU, AGED 75 YEARS, PANACHIRAMEL HOUSE, PURACHERI, EZHILODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SUMITHRAN. P., S/O. CHANDRANKUNJU, AGED 37 YEARS, PANACHIRAMEL HOUSE, PURACHERI, EZHILODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.I.V.PRAMOD, SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN.

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU. S.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶17

B.A.No. 152 of 2017

¶18

Dated this the 23^rd day of January, 2017

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.1246 of 2015 of Pariyaram Police Station. The second petitioner is the son of the first petitioner. The second petitioner's wife was one Reshma. On 19.11.2015 she along with her three year old child committed suicide. The police registered a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Later a report was sent to the Magistrate concerned stating that commission of the offences under Sections 302, 306 and 498A IPC by the petitioners had been disclosed. According to the prosecution the petitioners had subjected the wife of the second petitioner to cruelty, which caused her to commit suicide along with her child.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶23

I have perused the case diary. The suicide note left behind by the deceased does not indicate any reason for committing suicide. It only indicates that the relationship between the second petitioner and her

¶24

B.A.No. 152 of 2017 2

¶25

was a strained one. The statement made by the mother of the deceased to the police shows that the petitioners had subjected her to cruelty. But that is no ground to incorporate Section 306 IPC. It is very doubtful Section 306 IPC is attracted. There cannot be any doubt that Section 302 IPC is not attracted. Having regard to these facts, I am inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioners.

¶26

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed.

¶27

i. The petitioners shall be released on bail

¶28

after interrogation on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if they are arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶29

ii. They shall appear before the investigating

¶30

officer for interrogation on the 7^th and 14^th day after they are released on bail.

¶31

iii. They shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall they get themselves involved in any other criminal case.

¶32

iv. They shall surrender their passports before the lower court concerned or if they do not have

¶33

B.A.No. 152 of 2017 3

¶34

one they shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of their release.

¶35

v. They shall not leave India without the

¶36

previous permission of the court of enquiry or trial court as the case may be.

¶37

vi) They shall not get themselves involved in

¶38

any other criminal case while they are on bail.

¶39

If they surrender before the Magistrate, this order is not applicable

¶40

and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

¶41

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the lower court

¶42

concerned is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶43

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶44

Janaki P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janaki P 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

Mathew Varghese @ Sharon Vs the State of Kerala

Aniyan.D Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Vs State of Kerala

Sri. Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Nikhil @ Ganapathy Vs State of Kerala

Savad K.M Vs State of Kerala