SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Noushad vs State on 28 March, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

THURSDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1941

Bail Appl..No. 4620 of 2018

CRIME NO. 153/2018 OF Tirur Police Station , Malappuram

PETITIONER/S:

1 NOUSHAD,AGED 32 YEARS,S/O.ABDULLAKUTTY,PUTHUVEETTIL
HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA P.O, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.

2 ABDULLAKUTTY,AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED,
PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA P.O,TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

3 MANAF, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLAKUTTY,PUTHUVEETTIL
HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA P.O,TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.

4 FAISAL, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.ISMAIL,KOLATHINGAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA
P.O,TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

5 SULAIKHA, AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O.ABDULLAKUTTY,PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA
P.O,TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

6 ASIA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.ABDULLAKUTTY,PUTHUVEETTIL
HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA P.O,TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT

7 MURSHIDA, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.MANAF,PUTHUVEETTIL
HOUSE, PADINHAREKKARA P.O,TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT

8 SAINABA, AGED 40 YEARS,W/O.FAISAL,PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE,
PADINHAREKKARA P.O,TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

BY ADVS.
SMT.N.DEEPA
SRI.M.V.BALAGOPAL

RESPONDENT/S:
STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TIRUR , REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.682031
SMT.M.N.MAYA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Bail Appl..No. 4620 of 2018

ORDER

Petitioners are the accused persons in crime no.153/2018 of

Tirur police station. They allegedly committed offences punishable

under Secs 304B, 306 and 498A of IPC read with IPC 34. They

seek bail under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.

2. A person by name Sabna committed suicide on

4.3.2018 by hanging herself. Petitioners 1,2 and 5 are the

husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. The

other petitioners are the relatives of the husband of the deceased.

The marriage of the first petitioner with Sabna was on 22.12.2013.

Her death was on 4.3.2018. Alleging harassment at the end of the

petitioners, a case has been registered against them.

3. Heard Smt.N.Deepa, the learned counsel for the

petitioners and Smt.M.N.Maya, the learned public prosecutor.

4. I am shown the case diary by the learned public

prosecutor. I perused it. Having perused the same, I am of the

opinion that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The case

diary does not disclose any particular instance of harassment.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first

petitioner was abroad at the time of the death of his wife. It is
3
Bail Appl..No. 4620 of 2018

also submitted that no complaint whatsoever against any of the

petitioners was ever filed by Sabna or her relatives. Another

submission of the learned counsel is that among the petitioners

only three of them, who are petitioners 2,3 and 5, have been

residing in the matrimonial home of Sabna. It is premature to

accept or reject the submissions, but cannot be totally brushed

aside. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners does not appear

to be necessary for an effective investigation of the case. I am, in

these circumstances, inclined to allow the application.

5. The application is allowed. If arrested in connection

with crime no.153/2018 of Tirur police station, the petitioners shall

be released on bail, after interrogation, on each of them executing

a bond for Rs 75,000/- (seventy five thousand only) with two

solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

investigating officer. The petitioners shall co-operate with the

investigation. They shall make themselves available for

interrogation if so required by the investigating officer. The

petitioners shall report to the investigating officer between 10 am

and 11 am on every Wednesday for a period of two months or till

the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. The petitioners

shall not intimidate or attempt to influence witnesses. Nor shall

they destroy or tamper with evidence. The court having

jurisdiction is hereby empowered to cancel the bail in accordance
4
Bail Appl..No. 4620 of 2018

with law if any of the conditions aforementioned is violated. If

the petitioners choose to surrender before the magistrate, this

order ceases to have any effect and the learned magistrate will

pass appropriate orders as if this order has not been passed.

SD/-

A.M.BABU

JUDGE

SKS/28.3.2019
5
Bail Appl..No. 4620 of 2018

APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN
CRL.M.C.NO.649/2018,DATED 02.7.2018.

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