Parvathy v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/26TH POUSHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 9168 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 582/2014 OF MANGALAMDAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT ------------------ APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.2 :

------------------------------------------- PARVATHY, AGED 57 YEARS W/O. SIVARAMAN, CHEMBODU, PALAMUKKU AYALUR P.O., NEMMARA, CHITTUR PALAKKAD.

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONVENT/COMPLAINANT :

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

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SREEJITH V.S.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - B.A.No.9168 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - Dated this the 16th day of January 2015

ORDER

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2.

Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.582/2014 of the Mangalamdam Police station, Palakkad district registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The allegation against the petitioner is that, there was a wordy altercation between the de-facto complainant and her and, as a continuation of such a wordy altercation, on 25.9.2014 at 5.45 p.m., the first accused, who is the husband of the petitioner, repeatedly inflicted serious injuries on the de-facto complainant by using a chopper. The allegation against the petitioner is that she abused the de-facto complainant and assisted her husband in

B.A.9168 of 2014 carrying out the operation.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

5. All the main overt acts are alleged against the first accused. The first accused has been arrested, detained and he has been enlarged on bail. On going through the allegations against the petitioner, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the continued investigation of this case. No criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioner. Matters being so, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. 6.

In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting

B.A.9168 of 2014 arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Fridays and Tuesdays, commencing from 23.1.2015 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.

It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail. Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE dl // TRUE COPY // PA to Judge