SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

T.Abdul Latheef vs State(Sho Kolavalloor Police … on 18 January, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

FRIDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 28TH POUSHA, 1940

Bail Appl..No. 83 of 2019

CRIME NO. 65/2006 OF KOLAVALLUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

T.ABDUL LATHEEF,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.ABDULLA MOULAVI, SELF EMPLOYED,
RESIDING AT THEEPARAMBATH HOUSE, KOLAVALLOOR AMSOM,
POST CHERUPARAMBA-670693, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA.

BY ADVS.
SRI.T.ASAFALI
SMT.LALIZA.T.Y.

RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE(SHO KOLAVALLOOR POLICE STATION)
REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.

SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 83 of 2019 2

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

2. On 2.09.2006 a complaint was lodged before the

Kolavalloor Police Station by a near relative of one Sabira, the wife of

the applicant herein, that she had died otherwise than under normal

circumstances in her matrimonial home. A Crime was initially

registered under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C.

3. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that the

relationship between the spouses was strained and that it was a case

of suicide. Alleging that the applicant had abetted the commission of

suicide of his wife, report was submitted adding Section 498A and

Section 306 of the IPC. The autopsy report revealed that his wife had

died of cyanide poisoning. Investigation was then taken over by the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thalassery. The applicant herein was

arrested on 30.8.2006 and he was later released on bail on 20.9.2006

by the Court of Session, Thalassery. The investigation was completed
Bail Appl..No. 83 of 2019 3

and final report was laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Thalassery on 8.4.2008 under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC. The

case was later committed to the Court of Session and was numbered

as S.C.No.798 of 2008 by the Court of Sessions, Thalassery.

4. The family members of the deceased was not satisfied with

the investigation as they were certain that it was a case of murder.

Based on his application, further investigation was ordered by the

court below. This went on for some time and various officers

conducted the investigation. However, the result was the same. Finally,

a report was submitted before the court of Session on 22.7.2014

incorporating the very same offences.

5. The father of the deceased then approached this Court and

sought for an impartial investigation. This Court by judgment dated

6.4.2016, ordered to constitute a Special Investigation Team to

conduct further investigation in the said Crime. The said team

concluded that it was a case of murder. According to the team of

officers, the petitioner had inserted a cyanide capsule in a fruit and he

had offered it to his wife causing her death. A fresh final report was

laid incorporating section 302 of the IPC.

Bail Appl..No. 83 of 2019 4

6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended

that the applicant was questioned by the officers all through as he was

on bail pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge in

the year 2006. According to the learned counsel, he is totally innocent

and the report that it was a case of murder was submitted after more

than a decade. As the final report has been laid under section 302 of

the IPC, the learned Magistrate before whom the report has been laid

expressed his opinion that he was powerless to grant bail. In view of

the above, he approached the Court of Session seeking an order of

pre-arrest bail which was rejected. According to the learned counsel

no purpose would be served in detaining the petitioner and prays that

necessary orders be issued.

7. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor who submitted that the

final report has been laid on 6.2.2018. He submits that the state has

no serious objection in passing appropriate orders as his custody is not

required for any purpose.

8. In view of the above, I direct the applicant to surrender before

the committal Magistrate and seek bail. It is made clear that the

remand of the applicant may not be required in the instant case as he
Bail Appl..No. 83 of 2019 5

is on bail in the subject crime and the final report has already been

laid. I direct the learned Magistrate to consider his bail application on

the same day itself and pass appropriate orders.

This application is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE
IAP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2019 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh