IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY ,THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 7768 of 2018
CRIME NO. 695/2018 OF PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3:
1 RIYAS V., AGED 35 YEARS,
S/O.IBRAHIM, KANDANTAVIDE HOUSE, VADAKKAYIL,
P.M. MUKKU, MELE CHAMPAD PO, MOKERI AMSOM,
PANOOR DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK,
2 JAMEELA V., AGED 50 YEARS,
W/O. IBRAHIM, KANDANTAVIDE HOUSE, VADAKKAYIL,
P.M.MUKKU, MELE CHAMPAD P.O, MOKERI AMSOM,
PANOOR DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK,
3 SHABINAS @ SHARIQ ROSH,
AGED 26 YEARS,
S/O. IBRAHIM, KANDANTAVIDE HOUSE, VADAKKAYIL,
P.M.MUKKU, MELE CHAMPAD P.O, MOKERI AMSOM, PANOOR
DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PANOOR POLICE STATION,
KANNUR DISTRICT – 670 001.
SRI. AMJAD ALI – SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 7768 of 2018 2
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The applicants herein are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime
No.695 of 2018 of the Panoor Police Station, registered under Sections
498A, 323 and 403 of the IPC.
3. The 1st applicant is the husband of the de facto complainant.
The applicants 2 and 3 are the mother and brother respectively of the
1st applicant. The marriage between the de facto complainant and the
1st applicant was solemnised on 9.1.2017. Immediately after the
marriage, the 1st accused went abroad. While she was residing with
the rest of the accused, they are alleged to have subjected her to
matrimonial cruelty. On 16.7.2018, the 1 st applicant returned back
home and he is alleged to have joined hands with the rest of the
accused to harass the de facto complainant. She was left with no
alternative, but to call her father and leave the matrimonial home. On
17.8.2018, she along with her family members went to the
matrimonial home to collect her valuables. It is alleged that the
applicants herein assaulted her and pushed her down and she suffered
injuries. Stating these allegations a complaint was lodged based on
Bail Appl..No. 7768 of 2018 3
whichthe aforesaid Crime was registered.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted
that the parties had married quite recently and for very silly reasons,
an attempt is being made to destroy the relationship. He points out
that though the provision was enacted to check and curb the menace
of dowry, in the instant case, the provisions are being misused. The
complaint has been filed in the heat of the moment and, according to
the learned counsel, if the applicants are arrested and remanded, the
chances of settlement and reunion will be irrevocably ruined.
5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone
through the materials that have been made available. The allegations
now levelled does not appear to be grave warranting arrest and
detention of the applicants, who are the husband and in-laws of the de
facto complainant. I am of the considered view that the custodial
interrogation of the applicants are not necessary for an effective
investigation in the instant case.
6. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The
applicants shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days
from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are
Bail Appl..No. 7768 of 2018 4
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) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above
order shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation
and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every
Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.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.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
IAP //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE