SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Faisal Parambath vs State Of Kerala on 4 June, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1941

Bail Appl..No. 3743 of 2019

CRIME NO. 158/2019 OF Chandera Police Station , Kasargod

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4 AND 6:

1 FAISAL PARAMBATH
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.AHAMMED,NEAR GALLI PALLI,NJANIKKADAVU,
P.O. OZHINJAVALAPPU,KANHANGAD VILLAGE,
HOSDURG TALUK.

2 NABEESA AHAMMED,
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O AHAMMED,NEAR GALLI
PALLI,NJANIKKADAVU.P.O,OZHINJAVALAPPU,KANHANGAD
VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK.

3 KHADEEJA,
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.YUSUF,NEAR GALLI
PALLI,NJANIKKADAVU.P.O,OZHINJAVALAPPU,KANHANGAD
VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK.

4 ZEENATH,
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O.ABDUL RAHMAN,NEAR GALLI
PALLI,NJANIKKADAVU.P.O,OZHINJAVALAPPU,KANHANGAD
VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK.

5 NASEEMA,
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI,AMINAS,NEAR ICE
PLANT,KOVVAL,CHERUVATHUR.P.O,
CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK.

BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR

RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
B.A.No.3743 of 2019
2

HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
(CRIME NO.158 OF 2019 OF CHANDERA POLICE
STATION,KASARAGOD DISTRICT)671314.

ADDL.R3 SHAHINA SHAHUL, AGED 28 YEARS,
W/O.FAIZAL PARAMBATHU, MADIKKUNNU HOUSE,
CHERUVATHUR.P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT – 671313.

(IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER
ORDER DATED 04.06.2019)

BY ADV. SRI.M.BAIJU NOEL

OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1 AND
R2, SRI.M.BAIJU NOEL FOR ADDL.R3

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3743 of 2019
3

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

B.A.No.3743 of 2019

Dated this the 04th day of June, 2019

ORDER

The petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 in

Crime No.158/2019 of Chandera Police Station, which has been registered

for offences punishable under Secs. 498A and 494.

2. The brief of the prosecution case is that the lady de facto

complainant in this case is the wife of the 1 st petitioner/accused No.1 and

the 2nd petitioner is the mother of the 1st accused and petitioners 3 to 5 are

the other relatives of the 1 st petitioner. The brief of the prosecution case is

that after the solemnization of the marriage between the above spouses,

when the lady de facto complainant was staying in her matrimonial house,

she was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons demanding more

dowry and that the 1st accused had married another lady suppressing the

marriage with the de facto complainant and thereby he has committed both

the offences as alleged, etc.
B.A.No.3743 of 2019
4

3. Heard Sri.A.Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, Smt.Priya Shanavas, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for

the official respondents 1 2 and Sri.M.Baiju Noel, learned counsel

appearing for additional respondent No.3 (lady de facto complainant).

4. It is pointed out to this Court that the offence under Sec.494 of

the SectionIPC, which comes under Chapter.XX of the SectionIPC cannot be prosecuted as

a police charge sheeted case and therefore a crime cannot be registered for

the said offence. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the offence

under Sec.494 of the SectionIPC, which comes under Chapter.XX of the SectionIPC,

cannot be the subject matter of a registered crime, so as to prosecute the

case as a police charge sheeted one for the simple reason that Sec.198 of the

SectionCr.P.C mandates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence

punishable under Chapter.XX of the SectionIPC, except upon a complaint made by

some person aggrieved by the said offence, etc. and hence, it is pointed out

that the police has no authority to register a crime for offence under

Sec.494 of the SectionIPC, which could be otherwise prosecuted only on the basis

of a complaint of the aggrieved person.

5. It is now pointed out by Sri.M.Baiju Noel, learned counsel

appearing for additional respondent No.3 (lady de facto complainant) that

the 1st petitioner (A-1) is now abroad. If that be so, unless the accused
B.A.No.3743 of 2019
5

comes over to India, there is no question of entertaining an application for

grant of anticipatory bail, as the very jurisdictional fact of apprehension of

imminent arrest does not arise in such a case, as it is held by this Court in

judgment as in Souda Beevi another v. S.I. of Police others

[2011 (4) KLT 52].

6. Accused No.5 is not before this Court. So the other remaining

accused are petitioners 1 to 5 herein, who are the mother and other

relatives of the 1st accused/husband.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the prayer

made by the 1st petitioner (A-1) for grant of anticipatory bail may be treated

as withdrawn, with liberty to move a fresh application, after he comes to

India. Liberty is granted to the 1 st petitioner to work out his remedies, in

accordance with law.

8. On a careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of this

case, this Court is of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of

petitioners 2 to 5 may not really be called for and warranted in the facts

and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event

of the petitioners 2 to 5 being arrested by police in connection with the

abovesaid crime, they shall be released on bail on their separately executing

bonds for Rs.40,000/- each and on their separately furnishing two solvent
B.A.No.3743 of 2019
6

sureties for the like sum, each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer

concerned. However, the grant of bail will be subject to the following

conditions:

(a) Petitioners 2 to 5 shall not involve in any criminal offences of
similar nature.

(b) Petitioners 2 to 5 shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(c) Petitioners 2 to 5 shall report before the Investigating Officer as
and when required in that connection.

(d) Petitioners 2 to 5 shall not influence witnesses or shall not tamper
or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

If petitioners 2 to 5 violate 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
B.A.No.3743 of 2019
7

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation