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