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

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 6

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
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
IAP