SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Khadeeja vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 1ST ASWINA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.6660 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1424/2019 OF DISTRICT COURT
SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY

CRIME NO.691/2019 OF Thalassery Police Station , Kannur

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

1 KHADEEJA
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O.ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE, BAITHUL ZAYAN, KODIYERI
AMSOM, .P.O.PARAL, THALASSERY-670671

2 SAJEERA
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O.ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE, BAITHUL ZAYAN, KODIHYERI
AMSOM, P.O.PARAL, THALASSERY-670671

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SRI.P.M.RAFIQ
SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
SRI.V.C.SARATH
SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
SRI.AJEESH K.SASI
SMT.POOJA PANKAJ
SRUTHY N. BHAT
SRI.SHANAVAS NALAKATH RANDUPURAYIL

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.6660 OF 2019 2

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
—————————————–
B.A. No. 6660 of 2019
—————————————–
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2019

ORDER

The petitioners herein have been re-arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 4

respectively in the instant Crime No.691/2019 of Thalassery Police Station

for offences punishable under Secs. 498A and 306 of the SectionIPC. The crime

was initially registered under Sec.174 of the SectionCr.P.C. on account of the

unnatural death of the lady victim in this case. The Police after

investigation has altered the offences as one as per Secs. 498A and 304 r/w

34 of the SectionIPC. The accused array has also been re-arrayed now. The accused

No.1 is the husband of the lady victim and accused No.3 is the father of the

A1. The petitioners herein have been re-arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 4

respectively and they are the mother and sister respectively of accused

No.1. Accused Nos. 1 and 3 (husband and husband’s father) has already

been arrested and remanded and A3 has been let out on regular bail.

2. The prosecution case in short is that on 2.8.2019, the victim

lady committed suicide by hanging due to the mental and physical torture

inflicted on her by her husband and close relatives, who are the accused

persons in this crime. The main allegation raised is that the Police has now

traced out a note said to have been written by the deceased lady prior to her
Bail Appl..No.6660 OF 2019 3

death stating that the accused persons herein have mentally and physically

harassed her and that not even her dead body should be shown to them etc.

It is asserted by the 2nd petitioner herein (A4), who is the sister of A1 has

been residing in Chennai along with her husband. Further that, the

deceased lady and her husband was living separately in their marital home

and that the accused persons were living in a separate residence.

3. The counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the

investigating agency has not been able to collect any materials to even

remotely connect the petitioners with any of the vital ingredients of the

offence for abetment as per Sec. 107 of the SectionIPC and the offence of abetment

to commit suicide as per Sec. 306 of the SectionIPC. The petitioners have placed

reliance on various rulings of the Apex Court and this Court which has

dealt with the ingredients to be satisfied in respect of the abovesaid

offences under Sec.107 and 306 of the SectionIPC in decisions as in SectionSanju @

Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. [ 2002 SCC (Crl.) 1141],

SectionKrishnadas v. State of Kerala [2017 (2) KLT 579], SectionGurucharan

Singh v. State of Punjab [2016 (12) SCALE 414], SectionHarikrishnan

Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr. [2019 (3) KHC 437] and has

pointed out that no materials have been collected by the investigating

agency to even remotely connect the petitioners with the instant crime.

Further that the mere allegation that the accused persons have inflicted

cruelty and harassment on the lady victim is not sufficient to establish that
Bail Appl..No.6660 OF 2019 4

the accused persons have instigated the deceased lady to commit suicide as

understood in Sec.306 of the SectionIPC.

4. The learned Prosecutor has opposed the plea for anticipatory

bail and pointed out that there is possibility of the petitioners tampering

with the evidence, if they are let out on bail. The 2 nd petitioner herein, who

is the sister of the deceased lady’s husband admittedly has been residing in

Chennai along with her husband. The 1st petitioner is the mother-in-law of

the lady victim and she is aged more than 58 years and she has also been

living separately from the marital home of the deceased lady. Taking note

of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to take the

view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be really

necessary or warranted for effectuating smooth and effective conduct of the

investigation of this crime. However, the petitioners will have to fully co-

operate with the Investigating Officer in the interrogation purposes.

Accordingly, the following directions and orders are passed :

(i) The petitioners shall personally appear before the
Investigating Officer (I.O.), in relation to Crime
No.691/2019 of Thalassery Police Station and to subject
himself for interrogation process without any further delay
at any rate by 10 a.m. on any day on or before 04.10.2019
or within such time limit that may be extended by the IO as
he deems fit and proper.

(ii) The petitioners will fully co-operate with the
Investigating Officer in the interrogation process.

Bail Appl..No.6660 OF 2019 5

(iii) After the interrogation process is over, in case the
Investigating Officer arrests the petitioners in relation to
the abovesaid crime, then they shall be released on bail on
their separately executing bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees
Forty Thousand only) and on separately furnishing two
solvent sureties for the likesum both to the satisfaction of
the Investigating Officer concerned.

5. However, in that eventuality, the grant of bail will be subject to
the following conditions:

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

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

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

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

6. If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the

petitioners then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby

empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate

time.

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application

will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE

SKS
Bail Appl..No.6660 OF 2019 6

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