High CourtsSingle Bench

Aleemu vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 5 July 2021 · Citation: (2021) 07 KL CK 0063

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shircy V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 406, 498A
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 5035 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

26 paragraphs · 489 words

Shircy V, J

1.

Application for pre-arrest bail.

2.

The petitioner who is the second accused in Crime No.133 of 2021 of Nilambur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections

498A, 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code has filed this application apprehending arrest.

3.

The prosecution allegation is that the defacto complainant was married to the first accused who is the son of this petitioner on 2.8.2006 as per the

custom of their community and they resided as husband and wife and three children were born in their wedlock. But this petitioner along with the first

accused has subjected her to both physical and mental harassment demanding more money and thus committed the above aforesaid offences.

4.

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

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this petitioner who is a woman aged 73 years ailing because of various diseases was

falsely implicated in the case by the defacto complainant only to see whether she could put her behind the bars. In fact the defacto complainant and

the first accused were residing abroad after their marriage till 2016. During 2016 he lost his employment and so he was compelled to send her back to

his native place and thereafter she started to reside along with this petitioner at her residence. Due to the financial constraints the first accused could

not provide personal finance and all the facilities she was enjoying earlier and that was the only reason for preferring the case against the petitioner.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor has not raised any serious objection in granting pre-arrest bail to this petitioner aged 73 years.

7.

Considering the nature of the accusation levelled against the petitioner and the other facts and circumstances involved in this case I think that this

petitioner is entitled to get pre-arrest bail as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the bail application is allowed subject to the

following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each in

the event of arrest by the police in connection with the above crime.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him in writing. She shall co-operate with the investigation of

the case.

 (iii) The petitioner 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 him

from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

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

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the

law.