SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Riyas V. vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

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,
KANNUR DISTRICT

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,
KANNUR DISTRICT.

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

RESPONDENTS/STATE COMPLAINANT:
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

ORDER

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.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
IAP //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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