IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 1ST MAGHA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 8821 of 2018
CRIME NO.349/2018 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR
ABDUL KHABEER, AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.ABOOBACKER, KUNDILE PURAYIL HOUSE,
PANAMKUTTY, CHITTADI.P.O, THIMIRI AMSOM DESOM,
BY ADV. SRI.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
(REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERINGOME,
SRI. REJITH T. R.-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.349 of
2018 registered at the Peringome Police Station under Section 498A
r/w. Sec. 34 of the IPC. The de facto complainant is his wife.
3. In the complaint lodged by her before the learned
Magistrate, it is alleged that her marriage with the applicant was
solemnised in the year 2015. While residing together, he is alleged
to have subjected her to persistent mental and physical harassment
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted
that the allegations levelled against him are without basis. The de
facto complaint is a relative of the applicant and she was earlier
married to another man. It was after her divorce from her former
husband that she married the applicant. He points out that though
the provision was enacted to check and curb the menace of dowry,
in the instant case, the provisions are being misused. The complaint
has been filed in the heat of the moment and, according to the
learned counsel, if the applicant is arrested and remanded, the
chances of settlement and reunion will be irrevocably ruined.
5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have perused
the materials made available. The allegations now levelled do not
appear to be grave warranting arrest and detention of the applicant,
who is the husband of the de facto complainant. I am of the
considered view that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is
not necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.
In the result, this application will stand allowed. The
applicant shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days
from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is
proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his
executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand
only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above
order shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation
and the shall appear before the Investigating Officer on
every Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.M. for a period
of one month or till final report is filed whichever is
ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application
for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with the law.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE