IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

TUESDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 8049 of 2018

CRIME NO. 89/2018 OF KARIPUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

1 RAFEEQ @ ABDUL RAFEEQ
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O KAMMU,THOTTIYIL HOUSE,
KUMMINIPARAMBA P.O,.KONDOTTY TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

2 KAMMU
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O RAYIN,THOTTYIL HOUSE,
KUMMINIPARAMBA P.O,.KONDOTTY TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

3 RASIQ
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O KAMMU,THOTTIYIL HOUSE, KUMMINIPARAMBA P.O,.
KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

4 RASIYA PALAKKAPARAMBU,
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O KAMMU,THOTTYIL HOUSE, KUMMINIPARAMBA P.O,.
KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

RESPONDENTS/STATE COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI 682031

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KARIPPUR POLIE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-673 647

SRI T R RENJITH PP

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.12.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 8049 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.89

of 2018 of the Karippur Police Station, registered under Sections 406,

498A and 308 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The victim is the wife of the 1st applicant herein. It appears

that their marriage was in doldrums and the relationship was strained.

They are blessed with two children. On 21.10.2018, the 1 st applicant is

alleged to have cornered the de facto complainant inside the bedroom

and inflicted injuries with a knife.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted

that the allegations are false. According to the learned counsel, the

wife was having some relationship with a near relative and when this

was questioned, a minor altercation had taken place. The injuries are

self inflicted is the contention.

Bail Appl..No. 8049 of 2018 3

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. He

has referred to the wound certificate dated 21.10.2018 and points out

that numerous wounds and abrasions were suffered by the wife at the

hands of her husband. Insofar as the applicants 2 to 4 are concerned,

no serious objections are raised.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone

through the FI statement. Prima facie, there are materials pointing to

the complicity of the 1st applicant. A deeper probe into the allegations

are not warranted at this particular stage. Wound certificate also

reveals that the lady has suffered serious injuries. Having regard to

the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant an order of

pre-arrest bail to the 1st applicant.

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

application, insofar as it relates to the 1st applicant will stand

dismissed. He shall surrender before the jurisdictional court and seek

regular bail. 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
Bail Appl..No. 8049 of 2018 4

shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum

of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties

each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the

following conditions:

i) The applicants 2 to 4 shall co-operate with the investigation
and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every
Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of one
month or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

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 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE