BAIL APPL No. 407 of 2009 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is allowed
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there isallegation that demands were made for money and dowry asper allegations in the complaint. But, he fairly conceded that B.A.No.407 of 20093there is no allegation that the parties had lived separately orthere was any mediation etc. due to…
Judgment
K.HEMA, J.--------------------------------B.A. No.407 OF 2009--------------------------------Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009
O R D E RThis petition is for anticipatory bail.
The alleged offences are under Sections 498A, 307 ofI.P.C. According to prosecution, accused nos. 1 to 5, who arehusband and close relatives of the husband, allegedly harassedthe defacto complainant and committed the offences under theabove said sections. The defacto complainant delivered a babyand the Doctor reported that the blood results of both thedefacto complainant and the child for HIV was positive. Herhusband was taking some medicines and he told her that itwas for ulcer. It is also understood that her brother-in-law andhis wife were also having the same problem and the entirefamily knew that in the family, there was AIDS andsuppressing this fact, the marriage was conducted andthereby, all the accused committed matrimonial cruelty andother offences.
Learned counsel for petitioners submitted thatpetitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. B.A.No.407 of 20092Nobody knew that there was AIDS in the family. In fact, to theknowledge of petitioners, no person in the family had any AIDSat the time of marriage of petitioner. It is only after birth of thechild that parties have come to know that the wife and childhad AIDS. But, first accused is reported to have AIDS and it isnot understood how the disease was contracted and fromwhom to whom.
But first petitioner's brother or his wife did not haveany such problem and this is confirmed by blood test also (Thereport is handed over for perusal). It is not correct to say thatnobody in the family suppressed any vital information. Accusednos. 2 to 5 are unnecessarily implicated. All the allegationsregarding the demand of dowry etc. have been put forwardonly subsequent to the delivery, it is submitted. There was noquarrel in the family and the defacto complainant has no suchcase also and in these unfortunate circumstances, it issubmitted that petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail.
Operative part
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there isallegation that demands were made for money and dowry asper allegations in the complaint. But, he fairly conceded that B.A.No.407 of 20093there is no allegation that the parties had lived separately orthere was any mediation etc. due to any quarrel prior to thedelivery. The complaint is filed only after the delivery andaccording to defacto complainant, she remembered that firstaccused was taking medicines on the pretext that he washaving some ulcer and hence, she believed that he wassuppressing the fact that he was having AIDS. Learned counselfor petitioners at this stage clarified that to first accused'sknowledge, there is no medicine for AIDS and if at all he wastaking any medicine, it was not for AIDS.On hearing both sides, considering the peculiar facts andcircumstances of this case, I am of view that anticipatory bailcan be granted to petitioners on conditions. Blood test resultwas produced for perusal and it is found that the blood test forHIV is negative in respect of accused nos. 3 and 4. Hence, thefollowing order is passed :Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistratecourt concerned within seven days from todayand they shall be released on bail on theirexecuting bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two B.A.No.407 of 20094solvent sureties each for like sum to thesatisfaction of the learned Magistrate on thefollowing conditions :i)Petitioners shall report before theinvestigating officer as and when directedand co-operate with the investigation.ii)Petitioners shall not influence or intimidateany witness or tamper with evidence orcommit any offence while on bail. The petition is allowed.K.HEMA, JUDGEpac
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is allowed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 19 Feb 2009. The bench was K HEMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.