SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Riyas vs The State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019/24TH ASWINA, 1941

Bail Appln.No.7243 OF 2019

CRIME NO.872/2019 OF Thamarassery Police Station,
Kozhikode District

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

RIYAS,
AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O USSAIN,
KALLARMKETTIL HOUSE, PARAPPANPOYIL.P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 573.

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.FIROZ
SMT.M.SHAJNA

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 573.

SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S.BREEZE

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appln.No.7243 of 2019

..2..

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.872/2019

of Thamarassery Police Station for the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, Section406 of IPC and Sections 3 and Section4 of the

Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on SectionMarriage) Act, 2019.

3. The prosecution case in brief is as hereunder:-

The de facto complainant and the petitioner got

married on 13.7.2019 in accordance with the Muslim religious

rites and after promising her to take her within six months, the

accused took the de facto complainant to a resort at Wayanadu

and resided together. While so, the petitioner managed to

obtain 18 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her on promising

to return the same and thereafter demanded 65 sovereigns of

gold ornaments and cash from the de facto complainant. It is

further alleged that she was subjected to cruelty stating that

she is not beautiful and also pronounced triple ‘talaq’ in front

of her parents and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
Bail Appln.No.7243 of 2019

..3..

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner has not pronounced triple ‘talaq’ in front of her

parents as alleged by the de facto complainant. On the

otherhand, the petitioner received reliable information that the

de facto complainant is in love with one Dilshad residing at

Ambayathode in Thamarassery Taluk and that the de facto

complainant is not interested to continue the relationship with

the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the petitioner has already filed a petition for

restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court by virtue

of Annexure.A3.

6. On going through the facts and circumstances of

the case, it appears that the present case was registered on

account of matrimonial dispute between the parties. The

petition for restitution of conjugal rights as disclosed from

Annexure.A3 is pending before the Family Court, Kozhikode as

O.P.No.1095/2019. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
Bail Appln.No.7243 of 2019

..4..

invariably not necessary in a matrimonial dispute. Hence, this

is a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. In the result, the petition is allowed and it is

ordered as follows:-

1) The petitioner shall be released on bail in
the event of his arrest by the police in
Crime No.872/2019 of Thamarassery Police
Station on his executing a bond for
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only)
with two solvent sureties each for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the arresting
officer.

2) The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when directed
by him in writing to do so.

3) The petitioner shall not in any manner
intimidate or influence the prosecution
witnesses.

4) If the petitioner violates any of the above
conditions of bail, it is open to the Court
Bail Appln.No.7243 of 2019

..5..

having jurisdiction over the case to cancel
his bail without any further orders from this
Court but in accordance with law.

Sd/-

N.ANIL KUMAR,
JUDGE
skj

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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