• About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Contact Us
Saturday, January 16, 2021
Law Trend
  • google-play
  • apple-store
  • Login
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend - हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
  • Webinar
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
No Result
View All Result
Law Trend
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend - हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
  • Webinar
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
No Result
View All Result
Law Trend
No Result
View All Result

Simply because the petitioner is a ‘Woman’, she is not entitled bail- Kerala H C [READ JUDGMENT]

Law Trend by Law Trend
August 27, 2020
in Trending Stories
2 min read
272 3
0
kerala high court
535
SHARES
1.5k
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via WhatsappShare via EmailPinterest

A Single Judge of Kerala High Court Justice P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN decided the Bail Application No.4628 of 2020 of a woman, who alleged to have committed 6 Murders any charged with offences punishable under Sections 110, 120(B), 201, 302, r/w. Section 34 of the Indian penal Code (IPC) and under Section 2 r/w. 6(2) of the Poison Act.

The Counsel for Applicant apart from other submissions on the facts of the case, submitted that the petitioner is a lady and she is entitled the benefit of proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C.

The first proviso to Section 437 (1) Cr.P.C. says that, ‘the Court may direct that a person referred to in Clause(i) or Clause (ii) be released on bail if such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm’. 

Advertisements

The Court while rejecting the Application of the Applicant relied upon a Division Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Pramod Kumar Manglik & Ors. v. Sadhna Rani and Ors. [1989 Crl.LJ. 1772]. The Court held:

The contention of the petitioner that, she is entitled bail as per the first proviso to Section 437(1) Cr.P.C. is not sustainable. It is the discretion of the court to decide whether a woman is to be released on bail in the facts and circumstances of each case. Simply because the petitioner is a woman, she is not entitled bail. In this case, the allegations against the petitioner are very serious.The prosecution alleges that, the petitioner committed six murders including the present one. The modus operandi in all cases are almost similar. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled bail on the ground that she is a woman.

READ/DOWNLOAD ORDER

Tags: bailJudgmentkerala high courttrend2

Related Posts

Arnab Goswami BARC HEad Das gupta
Trending Stories

Big: WhatsApp Chats Between Arnab Goswami and Ex-BARC Head Released by Prashant Bhushan

January 15, 2021
calcutta high court
Judgements

Same Gender harassment complaint maintainable under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act

January 15, 2021
whatsapp
Court Updates

New Privacy Policy of Whatsapp challenged in the Delhi High Court- Justice Pratibha Singh Recuses

January 15, 2021
Chhattisgarh HC
Trending Stories

बीजेपी अध्यक्ष जेपी नड्डा खिलाफ सुनवाई से हाई कोर्ट का इनकार

January 15, 2021
alcohal
Court Updates

To attract an offence of drunk driving, accused should be subjected to blood test or breath analyser test

January 15, 2021
BCI Bar Council of India
Court Updates

Appreciate Supreme Court Order on Farm Laws: BCI Chairman

January 15, 2021

POPULAR NEWS

  • advocate sticker fortuner

    Where is the Provision of Using Advocate Sticker on Vehicle?

    5006 shares
    Share 2002 Tweet 1252
  • What is the tenure of protection granted under Anticipatory Bail? :SC 5 Judges

    4799 shares
    Share 1919 Tweet 1199
  • Air Asia Crashes Against Gaurav Taneja; Court Says Airline Suppressed Facts

    4619 shares
    Share 1848 Tweet 1155
  • Husband-Wife Take Oath as High Court Judge

    3242 shares
    Share 1297 Tweet 811
  • Is Using Stickers of ‘‘Advocate’’ on Vehicle legally Allowed?

    3162 shares
    Share 1265 Tweet 791
Law Trend

Rabhyaa Foundation has started this platform on values enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The object of this platform is to create informed citizens with recent legal updates, Judgments, Legislations of Parliament and State Legislatures, and views of experts in the field of law, in plain and pointed language, for the intellectual development of citizens.
Our tag line “The Line of Law” guides that this......
Read More

Follow Us On Social Media

Subscribe to our News Letter

Sign Up for weekly newsletter to get the latest news, Updates and amazing offers delivered directly in to your inbox.

Categories

  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Columns
  • Bare Acts and Rules
  • Online Internship
  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Contact Us

© 2020 Law Trends| All Right Reserved | Designed ByAaratechnologies Pvt Ltd

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Trending Stories
  • Court Updates
  • Judgements
  • Law Trend – हिन्दी
  • Bare Acts and Rules
    • Central
    • State
      • Uttar Pradesh Acts
      • Uttar Pradesh Rules
      • Uttrakhand
      • DELHI
  • Webinar/Videos
  • Columns
  • Online Internship
  • More
    • Humour
    • Submit Judgment/Order/Posts
    • Quotes
    • Legal Dictionary
    • Courts Weblink
  • Android App
  • IOS APP

© 2020 Law Trends| All Right Reserved | Designed ByAaratechnologies Pvt Ltd

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Create New Account!

Fill the forms bellow to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In