Allowed

Remaney v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Feb 2021Bail Appl./1803/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the anticipatory bail application of Remaney, the third accused in a matrimonial offence case involving Sections 498A and others. The Court imposed stringent conditions including appearance for interrogation, execution of a bond with sureties, and adherence to social distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

What did the court decide?

The bail application allowed on stringent conditions including posting a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, appearing for interrogation within ten days, and complying with social distancing norms.

Remaney Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 29TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1803 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.2399/2020 OF Anchal Police Station , Kollam

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

REMANEY AGED 60 YEARS REMALAYAM, PAMPUPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT 685551

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER ANCHAL POLICE STATION, ANCHAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT 691306

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SMT.MAYA.M.N., PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B.A.No.1803/2021 2

¶18

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶19

B.A.No.1803 of 2021

¶20

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2021

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This Bail Application is filed under Section 438 of Criminal

¶23

Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶24

Petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.2399 of 2020

¶25

of Anchal Police Station, Kollam. Originally the petitioner and two others filed a bail application as B.A. No.5760/2020. At

¶26

that time, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner herein is not an accused. Therefore, the other accused were

¶27

released on bail. Now the petitioner submitted that she is subsequently added as an accused. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 506, 323, 324, 498A read with 34 IPC.

¶28

B.A.No.1803/2021 3

¶29

The prosecution case is that the petitioner and the other accused mentally and physically harassed the defacto complainant.

¶30

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.

¶31

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no serious allegations against the petitioner. The offences alleged are matrimonial offences. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is the mother in-law of the defacto complainant. The counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant her bail.

¶32

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that based on a video subsequently produced, the petitioner is implicated as an additional accused.

¶33

After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the first and second accused were already released on bail as per order

¶34

B.A.No.1803/2021 4

¶35

dated on 22.9.2020 in B.A. No. 5760/2020. The offences alleged against the petitioner and others are matrimonial offences. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the defacto complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner is implicated as an accused subsequently.

¶36

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I think this bail application is allowed on stringent conditions.

¶37

Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

¶38

Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench of this Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.

¶39

Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement

¶40

B.A.No.1803/2021 5

¶41

(2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule

¶42

and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

¶43

Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this

¶44

case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

¶45

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from

¶46

today and shall undergo interrogation.

¶47

After interrogation, if the Investigating

¶48

Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, she shall be released on bail executing a bond for

¶49

a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the

¶50

like sum to the satisfaction of the officer

¶51

B.A.No.1803/2021 6

¶52

concerned.

¶53

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and

¶54

when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶55

Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

¶56

Petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶57

The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State

¶58

B.A.No.1803/2021 7

¶59

Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic.

¶60

If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶63

al/-

Remaney v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Remaney 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep @ Kochumon Vs State of Kerala

Arish Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Vs State

Sreedharan Vs State of Kerala

Raman Vs State of Kerala