IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1941 Bail Appl..No.4308 of 2019 CRIME NO.824/2019 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS:

1 RAJESH.N.PAI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANA PAI, 43/1327 B, SURYA, THOPPIL LANE, CEMETRY JUNCTION, KOCHI-18

2 VIDHYA PAI, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O. RAJESH N. PAI , 43/137 B, SURYA, THOPPIL LANE, CEMETRY JUNCTION, KOCHI 18.

BY ADVS.SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.EBIN MATHEW SRI.P.ROHIT PREMANANDAN SHENOY RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.S.SACHIDANANDA PAI FOR THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

B.A. No.4308 of 2019 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2019

O R D E R

Petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused 1 & 2 among the two accused in the instant Crime No.824/2019 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.324 & 34 of the IPC read with Sec.75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred for short as JJ Act).

2. The prosecution case in short is that the 2^nd petitioner (A-2) had secured her divorce from her 1^st husband on 09.11.2018, pursuant to Annexure-3 proceedings on mutual consent basis and and the permanent custody of the 8 year old minor son born to them has been granted to the 2^nd petitioner (A-2) subject to visitorial and weekend custody to the divorced husband and that the said minor son aged 8 years born to the said couple is the minor victim boy involved in this case. That the 1^st petitioner herein (A-1) is a divorcee having two minor sons and a minor daughter and the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd petitioner (A-1 & A-2) had married on 02.05.2019, after the 2^nd petitioner had secured divorce, as aforestated and thereafter petitioners 1 & 2 as well as the three children born to the

1^st petitioner through his first marriage and the minor victim boy aged 8 years born to the 2^nd petitioner through her first marriage are all residing together. That the weekend custody of the minor victim boy was given to the divorced husband of the 2^nd petitioner on 10.05.2019 and the minor victim boy had informed him that the 1^st petitioner had pinched him on his ear and had beated on his face, etc., pursuant to which the divorced husband has given a complaint/FI Statement to the police on 11.05.2019 alleging the abovesaid offences, which has led to the registration of the abovesaid crime.

3. Heard Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Amjad Ali, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the official respondents. Sri.S.Sachidananda Pai, learned Advocate, who is appearing for the de facto complainant has also been heard as an intervenor. Learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the 2^nd petitioner had sacrificed her life for her minor son, who was born late in her first marriage and that too after a series of infertility treatments and that the 2^nd petitioner had even resigned a senior managerial position with the HDFC bank only for the welfare of the minor boy and that the petitioners could learn that the initial complaint given by the boy was that the 1^st petitioner had slightly pinched on his ear, when he had raised the throttle of the scooter to full speed, without the consent of the 1^st petitioner only as a warning. Further that the minor victim boy is suffering from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and requires treatment and always requires the loving care of the mother and the abovesaid allegations have been raised falsely only at the instance of her