IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 24TH MAGHA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 7437 of 2018
CRIME NO. 241/2018 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 3:
1 ABIDA,
AGED 40 YEARS, D/O. HYDROSE,
VAKKIYATHU HOUSE,
MATTATHUR P.O., OTHUKKUNGAL,
TIRURANGADI , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 ABDUL BASIT,
AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. ABIDA,
VAKKIYATHU HOUSE,
MATTATHUR P.O., OTHUYKKUNGAL, TIRURANGADI,
MALAPPURAM 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.241/2018 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT).
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO.241/2018 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT).
Bail Appl..No. 7437 of 2018 2
3 ADDL.R3: FASEELA,
AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.ALAVI,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT AANJIKADAN HOUSE,
NARIMADAKKAL, VANDOOR.P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH
R1 R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. K. SHEEBA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 7437 of 2018 3
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
2. The 1st applicant is the mother of the 2 nd applicant. They
have been arrayed as the accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.241 of
2018 registered at the Kottakkal Police Station under Sections 498A,
406, 323, 506(i) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 1 st
accused in the aforesaid crime is the brother of the 1 st applicant.
3. A complaint was lodged by the 3 rd respondent herein, who
is the de facto complainant, before the Superintendent of Police,
Malappuram alleging acts of matrimonial cruelty against her by her
husband and his family members. The said complaint was forwarded
to the Family Welfare Committee. Having considered the grievances,
the Committee recommended to register a crime against the
applicants and the 1st accused. The aged parents of the 1 st accused
were granted indulgence.
4. The case of the 3rd respondent is that on 18.1.2007, she
married the 1st accused in the aforesaid Crime and they started
Bail Appl..No. 7437 of 2018 4
residing together as husband and wife. Some amount of gold as well
as cash were handed over. Thereafter the accused are alleged to have
physically assaulted the de facto complainant demanding dowry.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted
that there is no truth in the allegations. He would refer to a settlement
agreement entered into between the 1 st accused and the 3rd
respondent on 21.4.2018, wherein it is stated that the parties have
resolved their disputes and she has no further grievance. It is further
submitted that thereafter O.P.No.443/2018 was preferred by the 3 rd
respondent before the Family Court, Malappuram against the husband
and his parents for return of gold as well as money which were
allegedly misappropriated by them. The contention of the learned
counsel is that the applicants have nothing to do with the dispute
between the spouses and they have been residing separately.
6. The learned counsel, who has entered appearance for the
3rd respondent, has staunchly opposed the prayer. He would contend
that the wound certificate of the victim dated 21.3.2018 would reveal
that she was subjected to physical abuse.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.
Bail Appl..No. 7437 of 2018 5
8. I have considered the submissions advanced. On going
through the materials, it appears that the main allegations are levelled
against the 1st accused and his parents. Though it is alleged that the
applicants herein had subjected her to physical abuse, the wound
certificate would show that the assault was by the husband and that
was on 21.03.2018, much prior to the entering into the agreement of
settlement. No serious injuries are seen sustained by the victim.
Having regard to the nature of accusations against the applicants,
their antecedents and attendant facts, I do not think that their
custodial interrogation is necessary for an effective investigation.
In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants
shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from
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 as and
when they are called upon to do so.
ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
Bail Appl..No. 7437 of 2018 6with 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
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
IAP
