Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9016/2016 of GOPINATHAN PILLAI Vs STATE OF KERALA on 30 December 2016
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938Bail Appl..No. 9016 of 2016 () -------------------------------CRIME NO. 2129/2016 OF KUNNICODE POLICE STATION , KOLLAM PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2 &
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 9016 of 2016 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 2129/2016 OF KUNNICODE POLICE STATION , KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2 & 3:---------------------------
1. GOPINATHAN PILLAI AGED 70, KOCHARIMON VEEDU, THALAVOOR, KUNNIKKODE, KOLLAM.
2. OMANAAMMA W/O.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, AGED 65 , KOCHARIMON VEEDU, THALAVOOR, KUNNIKODE, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G SMT.V.SANDHYA VIJAYAN
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REP. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUNNIKKODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. KUNNIKKODE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
A.M.BABU, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.9016 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated 30[th] December, 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in crimeno.2129/2016 of Kunnikkode police station inKollam district. They are alleged to havecommitted along with their son, who is the 1[st]accused, offences punishable under sections294(b), 324, 376, 420 and 506(2[nd] paragraph)of the IPC read with IPC 34. petitioners seekbail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C.no.2129/2016 of Kunnikkode police station inKollam district. They are alleged to havecommitted along with their son, who is the 1[st]accused, offences punishable under sections294(b), 324, 376, 420 and 506(2[nd] paragraph)of the IPC read with IPC 34. petitioners seekbail under section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitionersand the learned Public Prosecutor.and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. I am shown the report received by the learnedPublic Prosecutor from the investigatingofficer. I perused it. Annex-A1 is a copy ofthe FIR. I read it and also the FI statementattached to it. Public Prosecutor from the investigatingofficer. I perused it. Annex-A1 is a copy ofthe FIR. I read it and also the FI statementattached to it.
4. The picture the FI statement gives is this :
B.A.9016/16
the 1[st] accused on a promise to marry the defacto complainant had sexual intercourse withher and had taken her gold ornaments. Hewithdrew from the promise and did not returnher ornaments. She went to the house of theaccused persons in search of the 1[st] accused.The petitioners who are the parents of the 1[st]accused abused the de facto complainant withfilthy words, beat her with a stick andthreatened to kill her.
5. It is not known with the aforenotedallegations how the investigating officer cancharge an offence under section 420 of theIPC and an offence under section 376 of theIPC against the petitioners. The allegationsin the FI statement do not suggest commissionof any offence by the petitioners other thanthose punishable under sections 294(b), 324and 506 of the IPC. All these offences arebailable. This is a case where theallegations how the investigating officer cancharge an offence under section 420 of theIPC and an offence under section 376 of theIPC against the petitioners. The allegationsin the FI statement do not suggest commissionof any offence by the petitioners other thanthose punishable under sections 294(b), 324and 506 of the IPC. All these offences arebailable. This is a case where the petitioners are entitled to bail under B.A.9016/16
section 438 of the Cr.P.C. I am thereforeinclined to grant it. I make it clear thatthis order will not in any manner go to thebenefit of the 1[st] accused against whom aloneis made allegations of rape and cheating.
Conclusion
In the result, the application is allowed.In the event of arrest of the petitioners inconnection with crime No.2129/2016 of theKunnikkode police station, they shall bereleased on bail after interrogation, if any,on their executing bonds for Rs.10,000/- eachwith two solvent sureties for the like sumeach to the satisfaction of the policeofficer investigating the case.
Sd/-
A.M.BABUJudge
Mrcs/30.12.2016
//True copy//
P.S to Judge