SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sajitha vs Station House Officer on 24 October, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

WEDNESDAY,THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 7439 of 2017

PETITIONERS:

1 SAJITHA,
AGED 46 YEARS, D/O. N.K KUNJU MOHAMMED
H.NO. 7/1168, MATTANCHERY VILLAGE
KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN – 682 002.

2 SADIYA SHAFI,
AGED 21 YEARS, D/O. R.M HAMSA,
H. NO. 7/1168,MATTANCHERY VILLAGE
KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN – 682 002.

3 ZAHID R.H.,
AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. R.M HAMSA,
H. NO. 7/1168, MATTANCHERY VILLAGE
KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN – 682 002.

BY ADVS.
SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM
SMT.NASEEHA BEEGUM P.S.

RESPONDENTS:
1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MATTANCHERY POLICE STATION
MATTANCHERY, KOCHI – 2.

2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,
PIN – 682 031.

3 ADDL.R3. SANILA SAINUDHEEN HAMZA,
AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.HAMZA SAINUDHEEN,
RESIDING AT SANIL VILLA,
CC NO.12/1022 C, PANAYAPILLY,
KOCHI – 682002. (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED IN
CRL.M.A.12355/17 AS PER ORDER DATED 13.11.2017.)
Bail Appl..No. 7439 of 2017 2

BY ADVS.
SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
SRI.JOSEPH KURIAN VALLAMATTAM
SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.N.PRABHAKARAN

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

2. The 1st applicant is the 2nd accused and the 3rd applicant is

the 1st accused in Crime No.1783 of 2018 registered at the

Mattanchery Police Station under Sections 341, 323, 498A r/w Sec.

34 of the IPC and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. According to the prosecution, the 3rd applicant herein

married the de facto complainant in the year 2015. Alleging that the

3rd applicant and his family members had subjected the de facto

complainant to physical as well as mental harassment demanding

dowry, a complaint was lodged leading to the registration of the

aforesaid Crime.

Bail Appl..No. 7439 of 2017 3

4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants

submitted that there is no truth in the allegations. It is submitted

that the 3rd applicant herein has preferred an application before the

Family Court, Ernakulam as O.P.No.2045 of 2017 seeking restitution

of conjugal rights. It is also submitted that the spouses are blessed

with a girl child, who is now living with the de facto complainant,

who is abroad. According to the learned counsel, the allegation of

physical and mental abuse levelled against the applicants is without

basis.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto

complainant, who had entered appearance, has opposed the prayer.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted

that though serious allegations are levelled, no materials have been

produced, along with the complaint to show that any physical

injuries were inflicted. In the facts and circumstances, it would be

sufficient if the applicants are ordered to co-operate with the

investigation, submitted the learned Public Prosecutor. It is further

submitted that the 2nd applicant has not been arrayed as an accused.
Bail Appl..No. 7439 of 2017 4

7. I have considered the submissions advanced and after

going through the materials on record, I am of the considered view

that the custodial interrogation of the applicant Nos. 1 and 3 are not

necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.

8. In the result, this application will stand partly allowed.

The application insofar as it concerns the 2 nd applicant will stand

closed. The applicant Nos. 1 and 3 shall appear before the

investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo

interrogation. Thereafter, if they are 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. However, the above order shall be

subject to the following conditions:

i) The applicant Nos. 1 and 3 shall co-operate with
the investigation and shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m.
and 10 a.m., for 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.

Bail Appl..No. 7439 of 2017 5

iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while
they are 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

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