Against The Order/Judgment In … vs Mammadeesa Pulikkal on 4 May, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2017/2ND JYAISHTA, 1939

Bail Appl..No. 3413 of 2017 ()
——————————-
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 480/2017 of D.C. SESSIONS
COURT,MANJERI DATED 04-05-2017
CRIME NO. 69/2017 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
———————

1. MAMMADEESA PULIKKAL
AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O HASSAN,
PULIKKAL HOUSE, EDAYATTUR P.O.,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST.

2. PATHUTTY,
AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O MAMMADEESA PULIKKAL,
PULIKKAL HOUSE, EDAYATTUR P.O.,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST.

3. SHAREEF,
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O MAMMADEESA PULIKKAL
PULIKKAL HOUSE, EDAYATTUR P.O.,
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
————————–

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI AJITH MURALI

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-05-2017,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

B.A.No.3413 of 2017

Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2017

ORDER

Petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No.69 of

2017 of Wandoor Police Station for offences punishable under

sections 498A, 406, 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The allegation of the de facto complainant is that the

first accused had married her on 25.12.2013. Thereafter, the first

accused along with the petitioners herein, who are accused Nos.2 to

4, subjected her to matrimonial cruelty in connection with demand

for dowry. Complaint was laid and the petitioner seeks anticipatory

bail apprehending arrest.

3. The allegations, except the allegation regarding bodily

READ  An Application For Anticipatory ... vs 1. Smt. Rama Dutta on 5 May, 2017

injury, appears to be general in nature. Though an allegation under

section 323 IPC is attributed to the petitioner herein, essentially

that fact is to be established by the prosecution through the oral

testimony of the de facto complainant and her eye witnesses.

4. Having considered the fact that the incident essentially

arises from a matrimonial discord with the in-laws and the

petitioners, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners

as follows:

B.A.3413/17
2

(i) Petitioners shall appear before the

Investigating Officer within ten days from today

and shall undergo interrogation. If they are

proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on

bail on they executing a bond for a sum of

Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two

sureties for the like sum each.

(ii) They shall appear before the

Investigating Officer as and when required for

interrogation.

(iii) They shall not get involved in any other

identical offence and shall not threaten, coerce or

intimidate the de facto complainant or his

witnesses.

The anticipatory bail application is allowed as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS
Judge

Sbna/23/5/17
True Copy / P A to Judge

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *