SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rafeek vs The Station House Officer on 31 October, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

WEDNESDAY,THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 5605 of 2018

CRIME NO.1245/2018 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM
DISTRICT

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

1 RAFEEK
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.ABOOBACKER, KALEEAZHIKATHU VEEDU,
ELIKKUNNAMUKAL, KAITHODU, NILAMEL VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.

2 SAKEENA,
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O.ABOOBACKER, KALEEAZHIKATHU VEEDU,
ELIKKUNNAMUKAL , KAITHODU, NILAMEL VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.

3 ABOOBACKAR, S/O.KASIMPILLAI,
AGED 70 YEARS, KALEEAZHIKATHU VEEDU,
ELIKKUNNAMUKAL , KAITHODU, NILAMEL VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.

4 SAIDUNATH BEEVI,
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O.ABOOBACKAR, KALEEAZHIKATHU VEEDU,
ELIKKUNNAMUKAL, KAITHODU, NILAMEL VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. MOHANLAL B

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

SRI C N PRABHAKARAN SR PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.10.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 5605 of 2018 2

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

2. The applicants herein are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime

No.1245 of 2018 registered at the Chadayamangalam Police Station

under Sections 498A, 323, 506(i) r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The 1st applicant herein is the husband of the de facto

complainant and applicant Nos.2 to 4 are his near relatives. According

to the de facto complainant, the marriage between herself and the 1 st

applicant was solemnized on 10.4.2011 and they are blessed with a

child. It is alleged that she was persistently harassed, both physically

and mentally, by the accused demanding dowry. In her complaint, she

alleges that on 12.7.2018, the 1 st applicant herein pushed her down and

assaulted her. She secured treatment for the injuries and later, left the

matrimonial home.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants would

contend that the allegations are baseless. According to the learned
Bail Appl..No. 5605 of 2018 3

counsel, the 1st applicant herein had filed a petition before the

jurisdictional Family Court, seeking restitution of conjugal rights and on

receiving the notice from the court, raising frivolous accusations, a Crime

has been registered.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has refuted the submissions. It

is submitted that the de facto complainant had secured treatment for the

injuries inflicted on her by the 1st applicant.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced. It appears that

insofar as the 1st applicant herein is concerned, there are allegations of

physical abuse. In that view of the matter, the 1 st applicant is not

entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail. He shall surrender before the

jurisdictional court and seek regular bail. Insofar as the applicant Nos. 2

to 4 are concerned, their custodial interrogation does not appear to be

necessitous for an effective investigation in the instant case.

7. In the result, this application will stand partly allowed. The

applicant Nos. 2 to 4 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)
Bail Appl..No. 5605 of 2018 4

each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order

shall be subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant Nos.2 to 4 shall co-operate with the
investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer
as and when 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
IAP

Leave a Reply

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

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