Manjusha Mohan v. Sub Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/22ND POUSHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 9228 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 752/2014 OF PERINADU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT ------------------ PETITIONERS/2ND AND 3RD ACCUSED :
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. MANJUSHA MOHAN, AGED 30, CHANGAYIL, EREZHA VADAKKU, CHETTIKULANGARA MAVELIKARA.
2. USHA MOHAN, AGED 52 MANOJ BHAVANAM, PADANILAM P.O., NOORANADU VILLAGE MAVELIKARA TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.SOORAJ T. ELENJICKAL SRI.B.PRASANTH SRI.T.S.SARATH SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS :
--------------------------------------------------
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINADU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-696 001.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SREEJITH V.S. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = B.A.No.9228 of 2014.
= = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of January, 2015.
O R D E R Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in crime No.752/14 registered for the offence under Section 498A IPC of Perinadu Police. The first petitioner is the sister and the second petitioner is the mother of the first accused, who is the husband of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the petitioners and the first accused subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners resided at different places and the defacto complainant at yet another place and the defacto complainant refused to go with the second petitioner when she underwent a surgery. The petitioners pray for for anticipatory bail.
2.
Heard.
3.
The defacto complainant and the first accused have been married only for about 2 1⁄2 years. There is no
B.A.No.9228/2014.
allegation that the petitioners or the co-accused inflicted any serious injury to the defacto complainant. The case arose on a complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the learned Magistrate. If the petitioners happen to be detained it will only wreck the chances of any reunion. So I am inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioners. 4.
In the result, this application is allowed. The petitioners shall be released on bail after interrogation on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only), if they are arrested by the police in connection with this case. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer later if they are so required by him in writing and shall co-operate with the investigation. Sd/- K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, (Judge) Kvs/- ( TRUE COPY )