Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. UBAID, J.
MRS. KAVYA MADHAVAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA - Respondent
B.A. No. 6570 of 2017
Decided on : 25-09-2017
Pre-arrest Bail - Criminal Law - The court considered the petitioner's request for pre-arrest bail in a case involving the abduction and sexual abuse of a film actress. The court noted that the petitioner's husband was in judicial custody on allegations related to the incident, but the petitioner herself had not been arraigned as an accused. The police report indicated that there was no definite evidence against the petitioner, and the police did not intend to arrest her. As a result, the court closed the application for pre-arrest bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case involving the abduction and sexual abuse of a film actress. The petitioner's husband was in judicial custody, but the petitioner had not been arraigned as an accused. The police report indicated that there was no definite evidence against the petitioner, and the police did not intend to arrest her.
Finding of the Court:
The court closed the application for pre-arrest bail based on the police report and the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor, which indicated that there was no reason for the petitioner to be concerned about arrest.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted pre-arrest bail in connection with the abduction and sexual abuse case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of definite evidence against the petitioner and the police's decision not to arrest her as the basis for closing the application for pre-arrest bail.
Final Decision: The court closed the application for pre-arrest bail, as there was no reason for the petitioner to be concerned about arrest.
P. UBAID, J.
1. The petitioner herein seeks pre-arrest bail on the apprehension of arrest as accused in Crime No. 297 of 2017 of the Nedumbassery Police Station.
2. This is a case where a film actress was abducted, and sexually abused and ravished in a running car. The petitioner's husband is now in judicial custody on an allegation that the incident of gang rape alleged by the prosecution happened in prosecution of a criminal design hatched by the petitioner's husband and others. The petitioner was once questioned by the investigating team. The Investigating Officer was required to file a report regarding the status of the petitioner, as to whether she is an accused or not, or whether the police wants to arrest her. Now there is a report from the Investigating Officer that the Police has already questioned the petitioner effectively, and that, she has not been arraigned as accused in the crime. The Police also does not want to arrest the petitioner in connection with the said crime. It is submitted in open court by the learned Public Prosecutor on instructions from the Police that so far, nothing definite could be collected as against the petitioner to arraign her as an accused in the crime. This means that the petitioner has no reason for any sort of concern, or apprehension that she would be arrested by the Police.
3. The Police report is recorded, the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor on instructions are also recorded, and this application is accordingly closed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
