IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 24TH POUSHA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 8835 of 2018
CRIME NO. 1332/2018 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT
1 MAJEED T.K., AGED 65 YEARS,
S/O.MAMMU, BABA HOUSE, KULOTH, THARUVANA,
7/2 WAYANADU DISTRICT.
2 FAUSIA T.K., AGED 52 YEARS,
W/O.MUHAMMED, NEAR PAALOTTUPALLI,
KALL ROAD, MATTANNOOR.
3 ASMA, AGED 45 YEARS,
W/O.KHALID.T.K., KULOTH HOSUE,
THAZHE CHAMBAD, CHAMPAD P.O.
BY ADV. SMT.O.V.BINDU
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THALIPARAMBU POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 141.
SRI. B. JAYASURYA PP.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The applicants herein are the accused in Crime No.1332
of 2018 of the Taliparamba Police Station, registered under Section
498A of the IPC.
3. The 1st applicant is a man aged 65 years. He was earlier
married which ended in a divorce. Through mutual friends, he got in
touch with the de facto complainant. She is also a divorced lady.
They decided to get married. On 19.7.2018, their marriage was
solemnised as per the Muslim Customary Rites. They stayed
together for a month. Thereafter, the 1st applicant is alleged to have
gone abroad. According to the de facto complainant, during the
period they stayed together, the applicants, who are her husband,
sister and sister-in-law, subjected her to harassment and cruelty
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants
submitted that the allegations are untrue. There are compatibility
issues between both parties and they were not able to live together.
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 gone
through the materials that have been made available. The
allegations now levelled do not appear to be grave warranting arrest
and detention of the applicants, 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 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 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 the 1st applicant shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on every Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.M.
for a period of one month or till final report is filed
whichever is earlier. The applicant Nos. 2 and 3 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
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.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE