SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28822

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.R.ANITHA, J
BINDU ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER – Respondent
Bail Appl./6185/2021



Bail may be granted when prima facie evidence against the accused is insufficient or questionable.

Headnote:

Criminal - Bail - IPC Sections 420, 323, 324 - The court granted bail observing a lack of prima facie case against the accused, highlighting procedural lapses in the case and potential motivations for the prosecution.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, accused of cheating and assault, argued that the case was fabricated due to her own complaint against the complainant's son for a serious offense. The police found no substantial evidence against her.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that no prima facie case was established against the petitioner, considering the circumstances and the complainant's son's possible motives for the allegations.

Issues: Whether there exists a prima facie case to deny bail to the petitioner accused of various offenses against the de facto complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: The ratified decision emphasized the lack of substantial evidence against the petitioner and potential ulterior motives behind the allegations.

Final Decision: Bail application is granted with specified conditions.

ORDER

1. Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1589/2021 of Changanassery Police Station, Kottayam, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 420 , 323, 324, 294(b), 34 IPC .

2. It is alleged that the son of the de facto complainant met the first accused through an online matrimonial portal, Shadi.com, and introduced himself as a divorcée and informed his desire to marry the first accused and she was also a divorcée having a girl child. Thereafter on 10.10.2018, a betrothal function was conducted at the residence of the petitioner and thereafter, decided to solemnize the marriage. On the basis of these understandings and the specific promise of marriage, the accused cheated the de facto complainant and her son by obtaining Rs.2,68,014/- on various occasions and a car bearing registration No.KL-33L/720 belonging to the de facto complainant was taken away on the request of personal use and it was not returned to the de facto complainant. On 22.7.2021 the second accused and other accused reached the de facto complainant's house and forcefully obtained several documents, signed blank cheques, signed blank papers and signed papers and threatened of framing false case using the documents and abused and assaulted the de facto complainant and his son, thereby accused committed the offence aforementioned.

3. According to the petitioner, this case has been falsely foisted against her by the de facto complainant at the instance of her son who had actually committed rape upon the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant supports the illegal and inhuman act of her son and facilitated to commit sexual offence against the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed complaint against the son of the de facto complainant alleging various offence including the one under Section 376 IPC and that crime was registered as early as on 4.5.2021. So in order to escape from the liability, this false case has been filed against the petitioner.

4. The Sub Inspector of Police, Changanassery police station filed report. In the report filed by the Sub Inspector it has been stated that for investigation purposes of this case, they went to the house of the de facto complainant several times to record her statement and that of her son, but they were absent. After two weeks, the de facto complainant came to the police station and her statement was recorded. The de facto complainant has no information about her son and the mobile number of the son is also not known to her. The statement of the son of the de facto complainant is inevitable to proceed with the case. It is further stated that a crime has been registered against the son of the de facto complainant as Crime No.348/2021 under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 506(i) and 500 IPC , in which the petitioner herein is the victim. It is further stated that this case has been registered based on a private complaint to counter the case against the son of the de facto complainant and he has been consciously absconding to avoid apprehension in the Crime registered against him. So prima facie it appears that a crime has been registered against the son of the de facto complainant at the instance of the petitioner herein alleging commission of offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 420, 506(i) and 500 . Petitioner produced copy of the FIR in the crime as Annexure-A4. Copy of the private complaint filed by the de facto complainant is produced as Annexure-A1. So on going through the records produced from the side of the petitioner and also the report of the investigating Officer, it appears that prima facie no case has been made out as alleged against the petitioner. Hence, I find it just and proper to grant bail to the petitioner, on the following conditions : i) The petitioner shall be released, in the event of her arrest, on her executing bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each.

ii) The petitioner shall make herself available for interrogatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top