Allowed

Saleem Mangalassery v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2008Crl.MC/3953/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged anticipatory bail granted to his brother-in-law for sections 498A and 306 IPC offences. Upholding bail, Court imposed conditions for summon, interrogation, and non-entry into a specific police jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail order upheld with conditions: surrender by 17.11.2008, specific interrogation dates, and prohibition on entering Thirurangadi police station jurisdiction.

Saleem Mangalassery Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3953 of 2008()

¶6

------------------------MC.1438/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

¶9

SALEEM MANGALASSERY,S/O.MOHAMMED, MANGALASERY HOUSE,SHATHIVAYAL,POST A.R NAGAR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶14

AMEER MOHAMMED,S/O.MOHAMMED KUTTY, PALAPPURA HOUSE,POST PUTHUPARAMBA, EDARIKKODE,KOTTAKKAL,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR

¶16

SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM FOR R2 SRI.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE FOR R2 SRI.K.A.JIBIN JOSEPH FOR R2 SRI.C.N.GOPAKUMAR FOR R2

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

R. BASANT, J.

¶19

- - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3953 of 2008

¶20

¶21

Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner herein is the brother of the deceased woman. In respect of her death crime was registered initially under the caption 'unnatural death'. In the course of investigation allegations have been raised against the second respondent herein, who is the brother-in-law of the petitioner – i.e. husband of the deceased - alleging offences punishable under section 498A and 306 I.P.C. After the said allegations were raised, the second respondent went before the Sessions Judge and sought anticipatory bail. By the impugned order, Annex.3, the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail. I extract the operative portion of the order below:

¶24

“ Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that granting of anticipatory bail will not adversely affect the investigation. Hence this petition is allowed. It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the above case, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for

¶25

Crl.M.C.No. 3953 of 2008

¶26

¶27

Rs.10,000/- with 2 sureties to the satisfaction of the officer effecting arrest. The petitioner is directed to appear before the investigating officer as and when required by the investigating officer.”

¶28

The petitioner has come to this Court complaining about the

¶29

grant of anticipatory bail as also raising objections against the nature of the order that has been passed.

¶30

Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor as also the second respondent/accused. The learned Prosecutor submits that the accused has not been arrested yet. He has got to be arrested. The learned Prosecutor however does not argue that the anticipatory bail order deserves to be cancelled. Appropriate conditions may be imposed, which shall ensure that the accused surrenders before the police and cooperates with the investigators, submits the Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the accused on the other hand submits that the accused has never made himself scarce and is willing to appear before the police and co-operate with the investigators. Any appropriate conditions may be imposed, submits the counsel for the second respondent. But the counsel submits that there are no circumstances whatsoever justifying cancellation of the anticipatory bail already granted.

¶31

¶32

Crl.M.C.No. 3953 of 2008

¶33

I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am satisfied that

¶34

the order granting anticipatory bail does not suffer from any vice which requires the invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction to cancel the anticipatory bail granted. But I do note, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, that though anticipatory bail was granted the learned Sessions Judge has not imposed any conditions which would facilitate an early, expeditious and efficient investigation.

¶35

I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that appropriate further directions can be issued while maintaining the direction for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶36

In the result:

¶37

a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed in part.

¶38

b) The order granting anticipatory bail is upheld and the following conditions are imposed.

¶39

i) The second respondent shall surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. On 17.11.2008. He shall be released on bail on condition that he executes a bond for Rs.25,000/with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

¶40

learned Magistrate.

¶41

¶42

Crl.M.C.No. 3953 of 2008

¶43

ii) He shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. And 3 p.m. on 18.11.08 and 19.11.2008. During this period the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the second respondent in custody. Thereafter he shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. And 1 p.m. on all Mondays for a period of three months and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so.

¶44

Iii) The second respondent shall not enter the jurisdiction of Thirurangadi police station, where the petitioner along with the children of the deceased and his parents resides until further orders. I make it clear that this direction shall not in any way fetter the rights of the second respondent to claim rights for the custody of the children or visitation right and the court concerned shall dispose of the said claim uninfluenced by the above conditions imposed.

¶45

(R. BASANT) Judge

¶46

Saleem Mangalassery v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem Mangalassery v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alappey Asharaf Vs State of Kerala and Another

Unnikrishnan Vs K.K.Sajeevan

Manu Kumar S. Vs State of Kerala

Jibi Vahid Vs the State of Kerala

Veenus Vs State of Kerala

K.B.Baiju Vs the State of Kerala