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

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’. 

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.

Law Trend
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles