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
