IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 29TH BHADRA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.5981 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1722/2019 DATED 07-08-
2019 OF DISTRICT COURT SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
1 MUHAMMED SAGEER,
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL KASIM, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, EDAVILANGU,
KODUNGALLOR.
2 ABITHA SAGEER,
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O.MUHAMMED SAGEER, VALIYAKATH HOUSE,
EDAVILANGU, KODUNGALLOR.
3 THASNA MANAF,
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O.MANAF AZADI, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, SRM
ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI
SMT.JESSY GEORGE
SMT.LEKSHMI S.SEKHER
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, KODUNGALLUR – 680
664, (THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM).
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
WOMEN CELL, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ROAD, PERIYAR
NAGAR, ALUVA – 683 101.
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, PATTIMATTOM – 683
562.
Bail Appl..No.5981 OF 2019 2
4 ADDL. MINZINA MUHAMMED
AGED 25 YEARS, D/O A.P.KUNJUAHAMAD, AYYAMMANAKUDY
HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM P.O, ERNAKULAM,
PIN-683562.
IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.9.2019 IN CRL.MA
NO.1/2019 IN BA-5981/2019.
R4 BY ADV. BIJU BALAKRISHNAN
R4 BY ADV. SMT.SAYUJYA
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1
RO R3, SMT.SAYUJYA FOR ADDL.R4
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.5981 OF 2019 3
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
B.A. No. 5981 of 2019
———————————–
Dated this the 20th day of September, 2019
ORDER
The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 4 in the
instant Crime No. 813/2019 of Kodungalloor Police Station which has been
registered for the offences punishable under Secs.354 and 498A of the SectionIPC
on the basis of the FIS given by the lady defacto complainant on 14.8.2019
at 7.45 pm in respect of the alleged incidents which happened for the
period from 16.5.2016 to 14.8.2019. The lady defacto complainant is the
wife of the accused No.1. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 herein (A2 to A4) are
the father, mother and sister respectively of accused No.1.
2. The prosecution case in short is that after the marriage of the
abovesaid spouses, the accused persons have inflicted cruelty and
harassment to the lady defacto complainant and that they have demanded
that she should bring more dowry and more gold ornaments and that she
lacks beauty and that she does not have the capacity to bear a child and
that the 1st petitioner (A2), who is her father-in-law used to harass her by
touching her body etc. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge
that the abovesaid allegations are false and fabricated and further that the
Bail Appl..No.5981 OF 2019 4
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for effectuating
smooth conduct of the investigation process of this crime and that this
Court may grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to any stringent
conditions.
3. Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondents and Sri.Biju Balakrishnan, learned counsel instructed by
Ms.Sayujya, learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent/lady defacto
complainant has seriously opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The
learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would point out that
many of the specific factual aspects narrated by the defacto complainant in
her initial complaint given to the District Police Chief has been omitted to
be recorded by the police official concerned in the instant FI Statement. It
is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the lady defacto complainant
that her party used to be harassed by the 1 st petitioner (A1) who is her
father-in-law by touching her body on quite a few occasions and that after
the registration of the instant crime, 1 st petitioner has been making various
defamatory statements against the lady defacto complainant before the
Jama-ath authorities etc.
4. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts
and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to take the view that
the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be highly imperative
for effectuating the smooth conduct of the investigation of this crime.
Bail Appl..No.5981 OF 2019 5
However, the apprehension raised by the prosecution and the learned
counsel appearing for the lady defacto complainant has to be duly factored
in while issuing safeguards as conditions in the grant of bail. Accordingly, it
is ordered that the petitioners will have to fully co-operate with the
investigating officer in the interrogation process. Accordingly, following
directions and orders are passed :
1. The petitioners shall personally appear before the
Investigating Officer (I.O.), in relation to Crime No.813/2019 of
Kodungalloor 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 01.10.2019
2. The petitioners will fully co-operate with the Investigating
Officer in the interrogation process.
3. 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
executing bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each
and on their separately furnishing two solvent sureties for the
likesum both to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer
concerned.
6. However the grant of bail will be subject to the following
conditions:-
i. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on
every 2nd and 4th Saturdays, at any time between 9 am and 1 pm, for
a further period of 4 months and thereafter he will report before the
investigating officer as and when directed by the said officer.
ii. The petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the lady
victim, witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence.
iii. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.
iv. The investigating officer concerned will ensure that a woman Police
Bail Appl..No.5981 OF 2019 6Constable will be deputed to the residence of the lady defacto
complainant to ascertain from her and her family members
whether she or her family members have been threatened or
intimidated by any of the accused persons or people under them
and if anything so adverse against the petitioners are brought to the
notice of the investigating officer, then the said officer shall strictly
deal with the matter in accordance with the law.
v. In case, the defacto complainant has any genuine complaint that the
petitioners have threatened or intimidated her or her family
members, then it will be open to the defacto complainant to file
appropriate petition/complaint before the District Police Chief
concerned, upon which it shall be ensured that an appropriate
enquiry is conducted on the allegations/complaint by a senior
officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Asst.
Commissioner of Police and if anything adverse is brought out
against the petitioners, then the District Police Chief will take
necessary steps to ensure that the investigating officer will file
appropriate application before the Jurisdictional court below
concerned for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners and
thereupon the said court will consider the said plea after hearing
the petitioners, the Prosecutor as well as the lady defacto
complainant and take a decision thereon in accordance with the
law.
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
SKS
JUDGE
