SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohammed Jabir vs State Of Kerala on 31 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1941

Bail Appl..No.7439 OF 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 10900/2019 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS – I, OTTAPPALAM

CRIME NO.395/2019 OF Shornur Police Station , Palakkad

PETITIONERS:

1 MOHAMMED JABIR
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O. ALI. K. T., RESIDING AT KONDOORKARATHODI VEEDU,
KARAKKAD POST, ONGALLUR, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT.

2 ALI. K. T.
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. YOOSUF, RESIDING AT KONDOORKARATHODI VEEDU,
KARAKKAD POST, ONGALLUR, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT.

3 JAFAR SADDIK
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. ALI. K. T., RESIDING AT KONDOORKARATHODI VEEDU,
KARAKKAD POST, ONGALLUR, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT.

4 HASEENA
AGED 29 YEARS
W/O. JAFAR. K. T., RESIDING AT KONDOORKARATHODI
VEEDU, KARAKKAD POST, ONGALLUR, PATTAMBI TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

5 SUHARA
AGED 24 YEARS
D/O. ALI. K. T., RESIDING AT KONDOORKARATHODI VEEDU,
KARAKKAD POST, ONGALLUR, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
Bail Appl..No.7439 OF 2019

2

KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN – 682 031.

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SHORNUR POLICE STATION, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
– 679 121.

3 NUSAIBA. M.
D/O. AMINA, MUNAMBATH HOUSE, PARUTHIPRA, SHORNUR
POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679 121.

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.7439 OF 2019

3

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J

BAIL APPLICATION NO. 7439/2019

Dated this the 31st day of October, 2019

O R D E R

The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 5 among

the 5 accused in the instant crime No. 395/2019 of Shornur Police Station,

which has been registered for offences punishable under Sectionsections 498A, Section354,

Section323 and Section34 of the IPC on the basis of the FIS given by the lady defacto

complainant on 04/09/2019 at about 12.45 in the noon, in respect of the

alleged incidents which happened for the period from 29/05/2014 to

26/08/2019. The lady defacto complainant in this case is the wife of the 1 st

petitioner A1. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and the 5th petitioners herein (A2 to A5) are

the father, brother, brother’s wife and sister respectively of the 1 st petitioner

(A1).

2. The prosecution case is that after the marriage of the above said

spouses on 29/05/2014, the petitioners have treated her with cruelty and

harassment and that A1 used to frequently complain that the gold

ornaments brought by her at the time of marriage is insufficient and that she

should bring in more and that A1 used to frequently chat with other ladies

and when the lady questioned it, he retorted that he could have four wives

and that A2 has touched her body and that A1 had violated the modesty of
Bail Appl..No.7439 OF 2019

4

the lady defacto complainant’s brother’s wife etc.

3. Counsel for the petitioners would point out that the above said

allegations are false and baseless and that the truth of the matter is the other

way around and that due to the marital discord created by the lady defacto

complainant, the 1st petitioner was constrained to file OP No. 782/2018

before the Family Court, Ottappalam seeking custody of the minor child in

December 2018 and as a counter blast thereto the lady defacto complainant

has filed Maintenance Claim as MC No. 1/2019 before the Family Court,

Ottappalam in January 2019 and it is only to spite and put pressure on the

1st petitioner that she has now raised the instant false allegations by filing

the instant private criminal complaint on 26/08/2019 pursuant to which the

present impugned crime has been registered on 04/09/2019. Further that

there is long and unexplained delay in lodging the instant crime especially in

relation to the allegations raised as against A2 and others and the fact that

the present crime has been initiated much after the initiation of the Family

Court proceedings by the 1 st petitioner would clearly be an indicative of the

falsity of the allegations and the excursive motive behind it.

4. Accordingly it is urged that this Court may grant anticipatory

bail to the petitioners subject to necessary conditions. Learned prosecutor

has opposed the plea for anticipatory bail.

5. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of facts and
Bail Appl..No.7439 OF 2019

5

circumstances of this case and also taking note of some of the factual aspects

highlighted by the petitioners herein above and also taking note of the long

delay in lodging the instant case atleast in relation to some of the

allegations, this Court is inclined to take the view that the petitioners have

made out a strong probable case that their custodial interrogation may not

be necessary or warranted for effectuating the smooth and fair conduct of

the investigation of this crime.

6. Accordingly in the interest of justice it is ordered that in the

event of the petitioners being arrested in relation to the above said

crime, then they shall be released on bail on their separately executing

bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Fourty Thousand only) each and on their

separately furnishing 2 solvent sureties each for the like sum both to the

satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.

7. However, the grant of bail may be subject to the following

conditions.

(i) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar

nature.

(ii) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and
when required in that connection.

(iv) The petitioners shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or
attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

(v) If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the
Bail Appl..No.7439 OF 2019

6

petitioners then the jurisdictional court concerned will 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

Nsd JUDGE
//true copy//
PA 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