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

2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 7069

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HEMA, J
B GANESHKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 498(A), 406, 506 (1) r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, the first accused married the defacto complainant and thereafter he misappropriated the gold ornaments and Rs.75,000/- given at the time of marriage. Demands were made for more money and dowry and she was harassed by the petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 3. The 2nd accused is the father of the 1st accused and the 3rd accused is the marriage broker and she is a woman.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant was solemnized on 11.11.07 and the defacto complainant was insisting that the petitioner should reside in the defacto complainant's parental house, for which the 1st accused was not willing. This is the only reason for the disharmony in the relationship. 1st accused has sent a reply to the notice sent on behalf of the defacto complainant. The petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted.

BA No. 7728/08

3. learned Public Prosecutor submitted that against 2nd and

3rd accused there are only general allegations. But against 1st accused ther

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top