Skip to content


Raja Pattath Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantRaja Pattath
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
.....004, trichur.3. soffi abdul rashid, aged 3 years d/o. m.k. ibrahim, nalakathukuttikattil house house no.27, green park p.o., thiruvambadi”020. trichur. by advs. sri. k. abdul jawad sri. mathew a kuzhalnadan sri. s. niyasudeen smt. k.s. haseena respondent/complainant: ---------------------- state of kerala represented by public prosecutor high court of kerala, ernakulam- 682031. by public prosecutor smt. laliza t.y. this bail application having been finally heard on 04-01-2013, the court on the same day passed the following: sp p.bhavadasan, j.--------------------------------------------- b.a. no.9499 of 2012 --------------------------------------------- dated this the 4th day of january, 2013 order the first and second petitioners, who are neighbours of the third petitioner.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 14TH POUSHA 193 Bail Appl. No. 9499 of 2012 () ------------------------------ CRIME NO.1876/2012 OF TRICHUR WEST POLICE STATION CRMC.1802/2012 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR MP.2742/2012 of J.M.F.C.-I,THRISSUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 3.------------------------------ 1. RAJA PATTATH, AGED 3 YEARS S/O. SURESH PATTATH, PATTATH HOUSE CAPPITTAL SODIYAC APARTMENTS, THOTTAPURAM P.O. PUTHOLE-680004, TRICHUR.

2. SEETHAL, AGED 3 YEARS W/O. RAJA, PATTATH HOUSE CAPPITTAL SODIYAC APARTMENTS, THOTTAPURAM P.O. PUTHOLE-680 004, TRICHUR.

3. SOFFI ABDUL RASHID, AGED 3 YEARS D/O. M.K. IBRAHIM, NALAKATHUKUTTIKATTIL HOUSE HOUSE NO.27, GREEN PARK P.O., THIRUVAMBADI”

020. TRICHUR. BY ADVS. SRI. K. ABDUL JAWAD SRI. MATHEW A KUZHALNADAN SRI. S. NIYASUDEEN SMT. K.S. HASEENA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sp P.BHAVADASAN, J.

--------------------------------------------- B.A. No.9499 of 2012 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2013 ORDER The first and second petitioners, who are neighbours of the third petitioner and the third petitioner, being the wife of the de facto complainant, found themselves arrayed as accused in Crime No.1876/2012 of Trichur West Police Station for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 380, 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The petitioners would point out that the allegations are totally false and are made with ulterior motive. It is pointed out that the third petitioner, who is the wife of the de facto complainant, has obtained order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and also has moved for divorce. Infuriated by the said act of the third petitioner and the help rendered by the first and second petitioners, a false complaint has been filed. A copy of the order is produced along with the petition as Annexure-A2. It is further pointed out that on an earlier occasion similar complaint was filed by the defacto complainant and the petitioners were granted relief in the form of an interim order. B.A.No.9499/2012 :2:

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition pointing out that Section 380 has been deleted and Section 420 has been incorporated.

4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having gone through Annexure-A2, it is found that there is some force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that this is a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. The petition is allowed as follows:

1) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 15.1.2013 who after interrogation shall produce them before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's court concerned, which court on application being moved by the petitioners shall release them on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the JFCM concerned.

2) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail.

3) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him. B.A.No.9499/2012 :3:

4) The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses.

5) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, of being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law. P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. okb.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //