K.S.Jayaprakash vs State Of Kerala

Kerala High Court
K.S.Jayaprakash vs State Of Kerala
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 641 of 2007()


1. K.S.JAYAPRAKASH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.S.SUNIL

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :/  /

 O R D E R
                                V. RAMKUMAR, J.


                    ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

                     B.A. Nos. 641 A and 698 B OF 2007

                    ````````````````````````````````````````````````````

                  Dated this the 9th day of February, 2007


                                      O R D E R

The applicant in B.A. No.641/2007 is the first accused and

the applicants in B.A. No.698/2007 are accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime

No.30/2007 of Ettumanoor Police Station registered for an offence

punishable under section 498A read with section 34 IPC. The first

accused is the husband of the de facto complainant, whom he had

married her on 26.1.1978, that is, about 29 years ago. According to the

de facto complainant, her husband is having an illicit relationship with

the second accused, who is also a married woman having her husband

and children and the first accused wanted to transfer the properties

standing in the names of the de facto complainant and the first accused

to his paramour, which was resisted by the de facto complainant.

Accordingly, on 16.1.2007 at about 2.30 a.m. accused Nos.1 to 4 are

alleged to have been trespassed into the house and assaulted the de

facto complainant with a view to force her to sign papers.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for

the petitioners and counsel appearing for the de facto

complainant/intervenor opposed the application.

BA.641 & 698/07

2

3. It is too early to accept the petitioners’ contention that the

petitioners have been falsely implicated by the de facto complainant.

Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. There is no

reason why the petitioners should not surrender before the Magistrate

concerned and seek regular bail. Accordingly, if the petitioners

surrender before the Magistrate and file application for regular bail within

two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of,

preferably on the same date on which it is filed.

These bail applications are disposed of as above.

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)

aks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *