SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Majeed T.K. vs State Of Kerala on 14 January, 2019

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. 8835 of 2018

CRIME NO. 1332/2018 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

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

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

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.

OTHER PRESENT:
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:
BA:8835/18 2

ORDER

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

demanding dowry.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants

submitted that the allegations are untrue. There are compatibility
BA:8835/18 3

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
BA:8835/18 4

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
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

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