IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 24TH POUSHA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 8796 of 2018
CRIME NO.553/2018 OF THRITHALA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 AND 3:
1 IBRAHIM, AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O.SAITH, CHUNKATH HOUSE, THANNEERKODE, (POST),
THALAKKASSERY, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 SUHARA, AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O.IBRAHIM, CHUNKATH HOUSE, THANNEERKODE, (POST),
THALAKKASSERY, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. AMJAD ALI SR. PP.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA:8796/18 2
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The applicants herein are accused Nos.2 3 in Crime
No.553 of 2018 of the Trithala Police Station, registered on the
strength of a private complaint filed by the de facto complainant, who
is their daughter-in-law. They face accusations of having committed
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 506(ii) r/w. Sec. 34
of the IPC.
3. The de facto complainant had married the son the
applicants herein on 25.4.2013 and they have a child in the wedlock.
She alleges that during their stay together, the applicants had
subjected her to cruelty and ill-treatment demanding dowry.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted
that the major brunt of the allegations are against the 1 st accused,
who is the husband of the de facto complainant. The applicants herein
are aged and ailing and they have been roped in as they are the
parents of the 1st accused. According to the learned counsel, the
BA:8796/18 3
parties fell apart due to minor differences and though earnest efforts
were taken to settle the disputes, due to various reasons, the efforts
did not materialize. He points out that though the provision was
enacted to check and curb the menace of dowry, in the instant case,
the provisions are being misused. The complaint has been filed in the
heat of the moment and, according to the learned counsel, if the
applicants are arrested and remanded, the chances of settlement and
reunion will be irrevocably ruined.
5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and have
perused the materials that have been made available. The allegations
now levelled do not appear to be grave warranting arrest and
detention of the applicants herein, who are the husband and in-laws of
the de facto complainant. I am of the considered view that the
custodial interrogation of the applicants, who are aged parents of the
1st accused, are not necessary for an effective investigation in the
instant case.
In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants
shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today
and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be
arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a
BA:8796/18 4
sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) each with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be
subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation
and shall appear before the investigating officer and when
they are called upon to do so.
ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application
for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with the law.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
KRJ
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE