IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY,THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 7810 of 2018
CRIME NO. 1/2018 OF ANDHROTH POLICE STATION , LAKSHADWEEP
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:
1 T.T. MOHAMMED KOYA,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.MUTHUKOYA, THAITHOTTAM HOUSE,
AMINI ISLAND,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP – 682 552.
2 T.T.PHAKRICHI BEEBI
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O.MUTHUKOYA, THAITHOTTAM HOUSE, AMINI ISLAND,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP – 682 552.
3 T.T.ATTABI
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O.MUTHUKOYA, THAITHOTTAM HOUSE,
AMINI ISLAND,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP – 682 552.
4 MOHAMMED NISAMUDHEEN
AGED 37 YEARS
H/O.T.T.ATTABI, THAITHOTTAM HOUSE, AMINI ISLAND,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP -682 552.
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR
SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, STATE AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,
REPRESENTED BY ITS STANDING COUNSEL
AT THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.
Bail Appl..No. 7810 of 2018 2
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ANDROTH POLICE STATION, ANDROTH ISLAND,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP – 682 551.
BY ADV. MR.MANU S., SCGC
SRI S MANU SC GC
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 7810 of 2018 3
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
2. The applicants herein are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in
Crime No.1 of 2018 registered at the Androth Police Station
under Sections 498A, 323, 406, 313, 506(ii) r/w Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. The 1st petitioner is the husband of the de facto
complainant. The petitioners 2 to 4 are the near relatives of the
1st petitioner. According to the de facto complainant, her
marriage with the 1st petitioner was solemnised on 11.5.2012.
They are blessed with a child as well. She alleges that the
applicants subjected her to matrimonial cruelty leading to which
she left the matrimonial home on 4.2.2016. Stating allegations
of physical as well as mental harassment, a complaint was
Bail Appl..No. 7810 of 2018 4
lodged on 1.3.2018, based on which the subject Crime was
registered.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that there are only minor issues. It is further
submitted that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act
have been initiated by the de facto complainant before the
jurisdictional Family Court, which are pending. According to the
learned counsel, there are still chances of reunion.
5. The learned standing counsel for the respondent
would submit that the allegations are grave and this Court will
not be justified in arming the applicant with an order of
pre- arrest bail.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced. It
appears that the de facto complainant left the matrimonial home
on 4.2.2016. Many of the allegations are in respect of incidents
which took place prior to that. The complaint is lodged in the
month of March 2018. There is a time lag between the incident
and the lodging of the complaint. Having gone through the
Bail Appl..No. 7810 of 2018 5
materials, it does not appear to me that the custodial
interrogation of the applicants are necessary for carrying out an
effective investigation.
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 proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail
on their executing a bond for 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 applicants shall co-operate with the
investigation and the 1st applicant shall appear before
the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between
9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of one month or till
final report is filed whichever is earlier. The
applicants 2 to 4 shall appear as and when directed.
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
Bail Appl..No. 7810 of 2018 6
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
