SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Muhammed Mushtafa vs State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019/24TH ASWINA, 1941

Bail Appln.No.7182 OF 2019

CRIME NO.1643/2019 OF Pathanapuram Police Station, Kollam

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :-

1 MUHAMMED MUSHTAFA,
AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, NISHA MINZIL,
NADUKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

2 SHAHUL HAMEED,
AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMED MUSTAFA, NISHA MANZIL,
NADUKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

3 SHAHIDA,
AGED 52 YEARS,
W/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, NISHA MANZIL,
NADUKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

4 ANEESHA,
AGED 32 YEARS,
W/O.MALIK BASHEER, AJMAL MANZIL,
NADUKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

5 NISHA,
AGED 34 YEARS,
W/O.MUHAMMED ASHRAF, MADAKKALIL HOUSE,
ALQAPPARA, MANIMALA VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

6 ASHRAF,
AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O.IBRAHIM RAWTHER,
MADAKKALIL HOUSE, ALQAPPARA,
MANIMALA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
Bail Appln.No.7182 of 2019

..2..

7 SHEEJA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
W/O.SULFIKKAR, PALLIKIZHAKETHILL,
NADUKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

8 SHEEBA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU,
PATHADY, BHAREETHIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

9 SHIBU @ ISMAIL,
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.ABOOBAKER, SAJI MANZIL, MALOOR P.O.,
PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

10 KICHU @ IRSHAD,
AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O.SHAJAHAN, IRDHAD MANZIL,
NADUKKUNNU KATTIKKAL, PATHANAPURAM.P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.
SRI.SUBHASH SYRIAC
SMT.SHEEBA JOSEPH
SRI.S.SREEJITH

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031.

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-689 695.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MS.M.N.MAYA

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appln.No.7182 of 2019

..3..

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under

Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. The 1st petitioner is the son of the 2 nd petitioner and

the 3rd petitioner. The petitioners 4 and 5 are the sisters of the

1st petitioner and petitioner Nos.6 to 10 are the relatives of the

1st petitioner.

3. The prosecution case is that on 6.8.2017, the 1 st

petitioner married the de facto complainant and ever since the

date of marriage, the 1st petitioner and the petitioners 2 and 3

have been continuously ill-treating the de facto complainant by

demanding more money and gold ornaments and on

20.9.2019, when the relatives of the de facto complainant

came to meet the de facto complainant at the house of the

petitioners, petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5 caught hold of the de

facto complainant and tortured her physically. While so, the

rest of the petitioners assaulted the father of the de facto

complainant and her relatives and the 1st petitioner pushed the
Bail Appln.No.7182 of 2019

..4..

de facto complainant and due to the push the de facto

complainant’s child fell down and thereby the petitioners

committed the aforesaid offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. Initially the crime was registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, Section323, Section324 and Section34 of the

Indian Penal Code and under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice

(Care and SectionProtection of Children) Act, 2015. When the case

has come up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor

on instructions submits that offences under Section 324 of IPC

and under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

SectionProtection of Children) Act, 2015 have been deleted

subsequently. The learned Public Prosecutor has further

submitted that Accused Nos.7 to 10 were deleted from the

array of the accused.

6. Annexure-A1 crime was registered against the de

facto complainant and three others as Crime No.1640/2019 by

the Pathanapuram police for the offences punishable under
Bail Appln.No.7182 of 2019

..5..

Sections 451, Section323, Section324, Section326, Section427 and Section34 of the Indian Penal

Code. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the FIR against the petitioners in the instant crime (Crime

No.1643/2019 of Pathanapuram Police Station) was lodged

after registering Annexure-A1 FIR as a counterblast to the

crime registered against the de facto complainant and three

others. Annexure.A1 further discloses that the de facto

complainant and her relatives came to the 1 st petitioner’s

house at Pathanapuram to sort out the family issues and

assaulted the 1st petitioner and her sister whereby the 1st

petitioner sustained a fracture in his hand.

7. Having taken into consideration of the fact that

Annexure.A1 crime was registered against the de facto

complainant and three others as Crime No.1640/2019 by the

Pathanapuram Police for the offences punishable under

Sections 451, Section323, Section324, Section326, Section427 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and the case is pending investigation, there

is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that the present crime has been foisted against the
Bail Appln.No.7182 of 2019

..6..

petitioners as a counterblast to Annexure.A1 crime registered

against the de facto complainant and three others. It is

further brought out that offences under Section 324 of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care

and SectionProtection of Children) Act, 2015 have been deleted

subsequently. The petitioners 7 to 10 have already been

deleted from the array of the accused by the police.

8. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above

and also in view of the fact that the present case was

registered on account of matrimonial dispute between the

parties, this is a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail to the

petitioners 1 to 6. In the result, the petition is allowed and it is

ordered as follows:-

1) The petitioners 1 to 6 shall be released on bail
in the event of their arrest by the police in
Crime No.1643/2019 of Pathanapuram Police
Station on their executing a bond for
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each
with two solvent sureties each for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the arresting
officer.

Bail Appln.No.7182 of 2019

..7..

2) The petitioners 1 to 6 shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when directed by
him in writing to do so.

3) The petitioners 1 to 6 shall not in any manner
intimidate or influence the prosecution
witnesses.

4) If the petitioners 1 to 6 violate any of the
above conditions of bail, it is open to the
Court having jurisdiction over the case to
cancel their bail without any further orders
from this Court but in accordance with law.

Sd/-

N.ANIL KUMAR,
JUDGE
skj

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 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