SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Hafis Al Rahman @ Haffis Ur Rahman vs State Of Kerala on 16 January, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 26TH POUSHA, 1941

Bail Appl.No.9017 OF 2019

CRIME NO.1814/2019 OF Pandalam Police Station, Pathanamthitta

PETITIONERS:

1 HAFIS AL RAHMAN @ HAFFIS UR RAHMAN
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. FAZLUL RAHMAN, RESIDING AT MANKARAM NELLUVELIL
HOUSE, KSRTC ROAD, PANTHALAM P.O., PANTHALAM VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

2 FASALUL RAHMAN
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL RAHIM RESIDING AT MANKARAM NELLUVELIL
HOUSE, KSRTC ROAD, PANTHALAM P.O., PANTHALAM VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

3 SUHARA
W/O. FASALUL RAHMAN, RESIDING AT MANKARAM NELLUVELIL
HOUSE, KSRTC ROAD, PANTHALAM P.O., PANTHALAM VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI. AMJETH ALI SR PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.9017 OF 2019 2

B.A.No.9017 of 2019
————————————-
Dated this the 16th day of January 2020

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in Crime

No.1814 of 2019 of Pandalam Police Station registered under

Sections 498A, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The first

accused is the husband of the de facto complainant. The

second and third accused are the parents of the first accused.

The accusation in the case in essence is that the accused

have subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty when they

were residing together.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. It is seen that the dispute arose on account

of the matrimonial discord between the first accused and the

de facto complainant.

5. In the circumstances, having regard to the

totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and having

regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Siddharam

Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2011
Bail Appl..No.9017 OF 2019 3

SC 312, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the

petitioners on the following conditions:

i) The petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer within ten days
from today. They shall also make themselves available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when
directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so;

ii) If the petitioners are arrested prior to, or after their
appearance before the Investigating Officer in terms of this
order, they shall be released from custody on execution of
bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two sureties each for the like
sum.

(iii) The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the
prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with
the evidence of the prosecution.

iv) The petitioners shall not involve in any other offence while on
bail.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

ska

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