IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 24395 of 2008(D) -------------------------- CMP.1827/2008 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ BINUMOL ZACHARIA, 28 YEARS, EDAMULAYIL HOUSE, MANGULAM POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. JIMMI SCARIA, MATTATHIL HOUSE, MELUKAVUMATTAM POST, MEENACHIL TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C). No.24395 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.166 of 2008. The accused in that crime are her husband and his parents. The accused persons moved the learned Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha for anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, without hearing the petitioner, proceeded to grant anticipatory bail to the accused as per order dated 24.04.08 in Crl.M.P.1827 of 2008. Subject to conditions anticipatory bail was granted to them. The petitioner does not want to raise any objections against the grant of bail. But she is aggrieved by one observation - unnecessary, according to her, which has crept into para.6 of the said order. I extract below para.6 and the relevant portion is underlined. “I perused the case diary file and the documents produced along with the petition. A perusal of the case diary would show that the defacto complainant is a mental patient. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor I feel that this is a fit case in W.P(C). No.24395 of 2008 2 which extra ordinary power conferred upon the Court of justice under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked in favour of the petitioners. Hence this petition is allowed in the following manner.” 2. According to the petitioner that observation was totally unnecessary and unjustified. It would appear as though that is the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge. This observation is being used against the petitioner not only to malign her in non official interaction, but also in certain proceedings which are also pending before the courts and authorities in which she is a party. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such an observation which, though it may not actually be, appears to be a conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge, is hurting the petitioner. The same is unjustified. It does not deserve to be allowed to continue. Even without that observation the order granting anticipatory bail would have been complete. 3. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. Of course, I do note that the learned Sessions Judge would not also have intended to come to or express any final conclusion on the W.P(C). No.24395 of 2008 3 state of mind of the petitioner when that observation was made. It does not at all amount to any adjudication or declaration of the mental faculties of the petitioner. At any rate, I find the grievance of the petitioner against that observation, which must evidently be hurting her socially and in proceedings pending before court, does not deserve to continue. I am satisfied that the prayer for expunging those remarks is absolutely justified. I am not satisfied that it is necessary to issue notice to the petitioners in that bail application ie. the husband and the in-laws of the petitioner to grant the relief claimed by the petitioner. 4. In the result: i) This Writ Petition is allowed; ii) The observation in para.6 of the order dated 24.04.08 of the learned Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha in Crl.M.P.No.1827 of 2008 that “a perusal of the case diary would show that the defacto complainant is a mental patient” is hereby expunged. Sd/- (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- /true copy/ P.A to Judge