—
Kerala High Court
Rishad Ahammed vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA,
1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 749 OF 2024
CRIME NO.1580/2023 OF Tirur Police Station, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 1600/2023 OF DISTRICT
COURT SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI
PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:
1 RISHAD AHAMMED,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. KUNHAPPA, VADEKKETHIL HOUSE, B.P.ANGADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676102
2 RASEENA,
AGED 60 YEARS
W/O.KUNHAPPA, VADEKKETHIL HOUSE, B.P.ANGADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 676102
BY ADVS.
K.J.MANU RAJ
K.VINAYA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN – 682031
2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TIRUR POLICE STATION, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN – 676101
SR.PP-SRI.RENJIT GEORGE
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BA No.749/2024
..2..
SOPHY THOMAS, J
Bail.Appl.Nos.749/2024
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2024
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of CrPC filed by accused nos.1 and 2 in Crime
No.1580/2023 of Tirur Police Station, Malappuram, registered
under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 308, 406 and 34 of IPC.
2. The prosecution allegation is that, the petitioners,
who are the husband and mother-in-law of the de-facto
complainant, on 25.11.2023 at 9.30 PM, assaulted her and
attempted to commit culpable homicide. She was admitted in
hospital with injuries and FIR was registered on 28.11.2023.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application, stating that the de-facto complainant was brutally
manhandled by the 1st petitioner – husband.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that, the 1st petitioner is a Teacher and he never caused any
injuries on the de-facto complainant intentionally. The incident
was part of the bickerings in their family life. The 2 nd petitioner,
BA No.749/2024
..3..
who is the mother of the 1st petitioner, is a 60 year old lady.
They are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this
Court.
6. On going through the allegations levelled against the
1st petitioner – husband, it could be seen that on 25.11.2023 at
9.30 PM, the de-facto complainant, who is his wife, was brutally
manhandled by him and she was admitted in hospital with
several injuries including hematoma over the occipital region
and contusion with sprain over both shoulders and contusion
over her right thigh. Investigation is only at the initial stage.
7. Considering these aspects the 1st petitioner is not
entitled to get pre-arrest bail.
8. But as far as the 2nd petitioner – mother-in-law is
concerned, she is a 60 year old lady and there is no allegations
of physical assault against her. So this Court is inclined to
release her on pre-arrest bail on the following terms:
i. The 2nd petitioner (A2) shall surrender before the
Investigating Officer on or before 22.02.2024 and subject
herself for interrogation. In the event of arrest, she shall be
released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum
to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
BA No.749/2024
..4..
ii. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner (A2) shall report before
the Investigating Officer, as and when directed.
iii. The 2nd petitioner (A2) shall not influence or
intimidate the witnesses, or tamper with the investigation.
vi. The 2nd petitioner (A2) shall not commit any offence
while on bail.
v. In case of violation of any of these conditions, the
jurisdictional court is empowered to cancel her bail, in
accordance with law.
9. The 1st petitioner (A1) is directed to surrender before
the Investigating Officer on or before 22.02.2024, and on his
arrest, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate
Court on the date of arrest itself, and his application for regular
bail, if any, shall be considered by the learned Magistrate on
merit and pass appropriate orders on the date of application
itself, as far as possible.
With these directions, the bail application is allowed in
part.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
ACR
