IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2019 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1941
Bail Appl..No. 2711 of 2019
CRIME NO. 65/2019 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2
USMAN,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.AMMAD, THALAYINTAVIDA HOUSE, EDACHERY P.O.,
VATAKARA THALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKOOL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682 031.
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.05.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2711 of 2019
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
B.A.No.2711 of 2019
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2019
ORDER
The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.65/2019 of Payyoli
Police Station, Kozhikode District, which has been registered for
offences punishable under Secs. 406, 498A, 354 r/w Sec.34 of the
SectionIPC.
2. The accused No.1 is the husband of the lady defacto
complainant in this case and the petitioner (A2) is the brother of
accused No.1 accused No.3 is the mother of the 1 st accused. The
brief of the prosecution case is that after the marriage between A1
and the defacto complainant, while they were living as spouses in the
matrimonial house, she was harassed mentally and physically
demanding more money and gold and that her gold ornaments were
misappropriated by the accused persons and that when she had
demanded that her gold ornaments should be returned back, the
petitioner had caught hold of her hand and had outraged her
modesty, etc.
B.A.No.2711 of 2019
3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that
the allegations had been only falsely foisted in the context of
matrimonial disputes between the spouses and that even going by
the prosecution case, the case suggested by the lady is that when she
had demanded her gold ornaments, the petitioner got infuriated and
he had caught hold of her hand and that the said allegations does not
in any manner even imply that the petitioner had any sexual intend,
etc.
4. After hearing both sides and taking note of the facts and
circumstance of this case, this Court is of the considered view that
the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this
case. Accordingly, it is ordered in the event of the petitioner being
arrested by police in connection with the abovesaid crime, he shall
be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- and on
furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, both to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.
5. However, in that eventuality, the grant of bail will be
subject to the following conditions:
(a) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences
of similar nature.
(b) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the
investigation.
B.A.No.2711 of 2019
4
(c) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating
Officer as and when required in that connection.
(d) The petitioner shall not influence witnesses or shall not
tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner,
whatsoever.
(e) If the petitioner does not comply with the directions
issued by this Court subject to interrogation process,
then the benefit of the directions issued by this Court
will automatically stand vacated without any further
orders of this Court.
If the petitioner violates all or any of the bail conditions,
then the jurisdictional court concerned will stand hereby authorised,
to consider the plea for cancellation of bail, if required, in
accordance with law
With these observations and directions, the above Bail
Application will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
vgd
