SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Abdul Nasar vs State Of Kerala on 11 May, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 21ST VAISAKHA, 1943

Bail Appl.No.3469 OF 2021

CRIME NO.125/2021 OF Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad

PETITIONER/S:

1 ABDUL NASAR,
AGED 37 YEARS,
S.O ABOOBACKER, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, OLD VYTHIRI, VYTHIRI
POST, KUNNATHIDAVAKA VILLAGE,
VYTHIRI POST AND TALUK – 673 576.

2 ABOOBACKER.V.P,
AGED 62 YEARS,
S.O ALI, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, OLD VYTHIRI,
VYTHIRI POST, KUNNATHIDAVAKA VILLAGE,
VYTHIRI POST AND TALUK 673 576.

3 NABEESA,
AGED 55 YEARS,
W/O.ABOOBACKER.V.P, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
OLD VYTHIRI, VYTHIRI POST,
KUNNATHIDAVAKA VILLAGE,
VYTHIRI POST AND TALUK 673 576.

4 LULUMOL.V.P,
AGED 21 YEARS,
D/O ABOOBACKER.V.P, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
OLD VYTHIRI, VYTHIRI POST,
KUNNATHIDAVAKA VILLAGE,
VYTHIRI POST AND TALUK 673 576.

BY ADVS.
SMT.SANJANA RACHEL JOSE
SRI.P.K.VARGHESE
SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN

RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682 031.

SRI C.N PRABHAKARAN SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.05.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. No.3469 of 2021 2

ORDER

Dated this the 11th day of May, 2021

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.125/2021 of

Vythiri Police Station for offences punishable under Section 498A, 354

IPC. The de facto complainant is the wife of the 1 st petitioner. The

2nd, 3rd and 4th petitioners are the father, mother, sister of the 1 st

petitioner respectively. The prosecution case is that the accused A1,

A3 and A4 had mentally and physically harassed the de facto

complainant demanding dowry. It is also alleged that the 2 nd accused

has outraged the modesty of the de facto complainant. The offence

was registered under the above circumstances.

3. Heard both the sides and perused the records.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners are innocent of all the allegations. According to him, the

complaint itself was filed with false allegations and as a part of the

matrimonial dispute. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the said

application and submitted that the 2nd accused committed the offence

under Section 354 IPC.

B.A. No.3469 of 2021 3

5. The allegation against the petitioners including the 2 nd

petitioner is serious in nature. However, considering the fact that the

offence is registered on a matrimonial dispute, possibility of

exaggeration cannot be ruled out. Further, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, this court is also of the view that the

custodial interrogation of the petitioners do not appear to be

necessary. Proper investigation can be ensured by securing the

presence of the petitioners before the investigating officer and their

co-operation. There are no criminal antecedents for the petitioners as

well.

6. It is also a relevant aspect to notice that, on account of the

alarming situation prevailing in the State owing to wide spread of

COVID-19 Pandemic, the Government is taking measures to de-congest

the prisons so as to enable the authorities concerned to maintain social

distancing within the prisons. As part of the said initiative, they have

issued G.O(Rt)No.1311/2021/HOME dated 05/05/2021, directing the

authorities concerned to grant parole to eligible inmates of the Prisons

in the State, subject to the compliance of Rule 397(L) of the Kerala

Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules 2014. The

Honourable Supreme Court also, vide order dated 7.05.2021 in Suo
B.A. No.3469 of 2021 4

Motu Writ Petition (C) No 1/2020 issued various directions for

minimizing the strength of inmates in prisons. In my view, the above

aspects are also very much relevant while considering this bail

application.

7. In the above circumstances, even though, there are serious

allegations against the petitioners, this court is of the view that, the

petitioners can be granted pre-arrest bail, by invoking the power of this

court under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

subject to the certain conditions:

In the result, the application is allowed on the following

conditions:-

i) The petitioners shall surrender before the

Investigating Officer, within a period of two

weeks from today, for subjecting themselves for

interrogation. However, while computing the

period as mentioned above, the period of lock

down, if any, declared by the Government owing

to COVID-19 pandemic can be excluded.

ii) After interrogation, the petitioners shall be

released on bail, on the very same day of
B.A. No.3469 of 2021 5

surrender upon the petitioners executing a bond

for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties each for the

like sum, to the satisfaction of the Investigating

Officer

iii) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the

investigation, including subjecting themselves to

the deemed police custody for the purpose of

discovery, if any, as and when demanded.

iv) The petitioners shall appear before the

Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and

11.00 a.m on every Wednesday until further

orders. However, this condition shall stand

suspended during the period of lock down

declared by the Government owing to COVID-19

pandemic.

v) The petitioners shall also appear before the

Investigating Officer as and when required by

him.

(vi) The petitioners shall not commit any offence of

like nature while on bail.

B.A. No.3469 of 2021 6

(vii) The petitioners shall not make any attempt to

contact any of the prosecution witnesses,

directly or through any other person, or any

other way try to tamper with the evidence or

influence any witnesses or other persons

related to the investigation.

(viii) The petitioners shall not leave State of Kerala

without the permission of the trial Court.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

DG

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation