IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY ,THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 7576 of 2018
CRIME NO. 687/2018 OF PANUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 4:
1 ABDULLA KARAT
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, KARAT HOUSE, P.O.ELANGODE,
PANOOR, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 SAINABA.K.
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O.ADDULLA KARAT, KARAT HOUSE, P.O.
ELANGODE, PANOOR, THALASSERY,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.D.FEROZE
SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM – 682 031 (CRIME NO.687/2018 OF PANOOR
POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT).
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT – 670 692
(CRIME NO.687/2018 OF PANOOR POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT).
Bail Appl..No. 7576 of 2018 2
3 ADDL.R3 FASILA MAHAMOOD
AGED 22 YEARS
D/O. MUHAMMED, VALIYA PARAMBATH HOUSE, NEAR
AKKANISSERI, P.O. CHENTAYAD, PANOOR, THALASSERY
TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS
PER ORDER DATED 27/11/2018 IN CRL.MA.01/2018)
BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.PP. SRI. AMJATH ALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 7576 of 2018 3
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2. The applicants herein are husband and wife. They have
been arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 4 in Crime No.687 of 2018
registered at the Panoor Police Station under Sections 420, 323, 498A
and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The de facto complainant is
their daughter-in-law.
3. In her complaint, she alleges that her ‘Nikah’ with the 1 st
accused was solemnized on 5.8.2017 and she was made to believe
that the marriage would be registered within a period of 15 days.
Without registering the marriage, she was allegedly subjected to
sexual intercourse. She also alleges that the 1 st accused used to
subject her to physical as well as mental harassment and a few
months after the marriage, he left the country after ditching the de
facto complainant. Insofar as the applicants herein, who are the
parents of the 1st accused are concerned, the allegation is that they
had assisted and aided the 1st accused to conduct the ‘Nikah’ and to
Bail Appl..No. 7576 of 2018 4
evade from registering the marriage.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants would
submit that the allegations against the applicants are vague. The
allegations are centered around the 1st accused and they have been
roped in solely because the applicants are the parents of the 1 st
accused. According to the learned counsel, the applicants are not
persons with criminal antecedents and there cannot be any
apprehension that they would make themselves scarce.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the de facto
complainant who submitted that the allegations are grave. The learned
Public Prosecutor has also opposed the prayer.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone
through the complaint which has been lodged by the victim before the
Circle Inspector of Police. Having considered the nature of allegations,
the role assigned to the applicants, the materials in support thereof
and attendant facts, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation
of the applicants are not necessary for carrying out an effective
investigation.
In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants
shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from
Bail Appl..No. 7576 of 2018 5
today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are
proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their
executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) each
with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, the above
order shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation
and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every
Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of two
months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.
ii) They 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) They 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.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
IAP //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
