SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Fathima vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 28 March, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

THURSDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1941

Bail Appl..No. 3489 of 2018

CRIME NO. 198/2018 OF Nallalam Police Station , Kozhikode

PETITIONER/S:

1 FATHIMA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY HAJEE,
MAMBISSERI HOUSE, MUNNIYOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DIST.-
676311.

2 MOIDEENKOYA, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY
HAJEE, MAMBISSERI HOUSE, MUNNIYOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM
DIST.-676311.

3 MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. SAITHALAVI,
MELEPALACHITTY HOUSE, VELIMUKKU, MUNNIYOOR AMSOM,
MALAPPURAM DIST.-676317.

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL

RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NALLALAM POLICE STATION,
NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE DIST.-673018.

3 ADDL.R3 SHAHANAS MOL K.P
AGED 24 YEARS, D/O MUSTHAFA, AJINAS MANZIL,
PATTOLATHUTHODI KOTTAYITHAZHAM, PERUMANNA PO,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673019.

ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28/3/19
IN CRL.MA 1/2018 IN BA-3489/18.

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANOOP
R1 R2 SRI. D. CHANDRASENAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Bail Appl..No. 3489 of 2018

ORDER

Bail is sought. It is sought under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. Petitioners

are accused 2 to 4 in crime no.198/2018 of Nallalam police station.

2. Heard Sri.Mohamed Jameel, the learned counsel for the

petitioners, Sri.D.Chandrasenan, the learned senior pubic prosecutor and

Sri.Anoop P.V, the learned counsel for the additional third respondent.

3. Admittedly the FIR was registered alleging commission of

offences punishable under Secs 406 and 498A of IPC read with IPC 34. It is

also an admitted fact that subsequently Sec.354A of IPC has been added.

4. I have gone through the FI statement. The allegation of criminal

breach of trust is made against the first accused only who is not a petitioner

in the present application. The allegation is that the first accused had taken

and appropriated 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the first informant.

5. Another offence alleged is the one punishable under Sec.498A of

IPC. No particular episode or instance of harassment is depicted in the FI

statement.

6. Petitioners 2 and 3 have been alleged to have committed an

offence punishable under Sec.354A of IPC. It is a bailable offence. The

learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the offence which

ought to have been charged was the one punishable under Sec.354 of IPC

and not the one under Sec.354A of IPC. That is not a matter which can be

considered while considering a bail application. The learned counsel submits

that his client has filed a complaint under Sec.190 of Cr.P.C alleging

commission of an offence punishable under Sec.354 of IPC against
3
Bail Appl..No. 3489 of 2018

petitioners 2 and 3. That case is not this case and therefore the allegations

therein cannot be considered.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, I

am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. I do not consider custodial

interrogation absolutely necessary for an effective investigation of the case.

It is however made clear that grant of bail to the petitioners by itself shall

not be a ground for the first accused to get bail.

8. The application is allowed. If arrested in connection with

crime no.198/2018 of Nallalam police station, the petitioners shall be

released on bail, after interrogation, on each of them executing a

bond for Rs 50,000/- (fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties

each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The

petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. Petitioners 2 and 3

shall report to the investigating officer between 10 am and 11 am on

every Wednesday for a period of two months or till the filing of the

final report, whichever is earlier. The first petitioner, being a woman

aged 70 years, shall report to the investigating officer for interrogation

only if so required by him. The petitioners shall not intimidate or

attempt to influence witnesses. Nor shall they destroy or tamper with

evidence. The magistrate having jurisdiction is hereby empowered to

cancel the bail in accordance with law if any of the conditions

aforementioned is violated. If the petitioners choose to surrender

before the magistrate, this order ceases to have any effect and the
4
Bail Appl..No. 3489 of 2018

learned magistrate will pass appropriate orders as if this order has not

been passed.

Sd/-

A.M.BABU

JUDGE

SKS/28.3.2019
5
Bail Appl..No. 3489 of 2018

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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