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