Allowed

M.A Latheef v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC18 Jun 2014Bail Appl./4342/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. involving allegations of dowry harassment, the court held that since there were no injuries and the matter was familial, granting bail would promote family harmony and reconciliation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail by executing a bond for Rs. 25,000 with two solvent sureties for the same amount, subject to appearing for interrogation and not tampering with evidence.

M.A Latheef Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/28TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4342 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 96/2014 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. M.A LATHEEF, AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.K.M.MOHAMMED, HI JAR THODAR IN THODAR VILLAGE,

¶9

BALTHENGADY TALUK, KARNATAKA STATE.

¶10

2. K.M.MOHAMMED, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING DO

¶11

3. SMT. AAYAMME, AGED 52 YEARS,W/O.K.M.AHMED,

¶12

RESIDING DO

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE :

¶15

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-673 121.

¶16

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKKAN

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶21

B.A. No. 4342 of 2014

¶22

Dated this the 18^th day of June, 2014

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶25

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.96/2014 of Manjeshwar Police Station which has been registered for the offences under Sections 323, 498(A) and 506(ii) read with Section 34 I.P.C.

¶26

The first petitioner is the husband of the de factocomplainant and the other petitioners are his parents. They are alleged to have subjected the de facto-complainant to cruelty demanding more dowry.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The marriage between the first petitioner and the de facto-complainant took place on 16.07.2006. They have no children. Since this is a family matter, the first attempt of the court should be to bring back harmony to the family. There is no allegation that the petitioners inflicted any serious injury to the

¶29

B.A. No. 4342 /2014

¶30

¶31

de facto-complainant. If they happen to be detained, the chances of reconciliation may become impossible. So I think it is proper to grant the prayer of the petitioners.

¶32

In the result, this application is allowed.

¶33

The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if they are arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶34

They shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation if they are so required by him in writing.

¶35

They shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.

¶36

This order is not applicable if the petitioners choose to surrender before the Magistrate concerned and in such case the learned Magistrate may take appropriate action in accordance with the law.

¶37

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶38

M.A Latheef v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.A Latheef v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajeevkumar Vs State of Kerala

Nilesh Jayantilal Shah Vs State of Kerala

Anu Santhi Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Vettakkarankandi Sreekanth Vs Sub Inspector