Allowed

Firose Thayyil v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Nov 2014Bail Appl./8091/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for a petitioner accused of 498A IPC and 406 IPC, as the investigation was practically over and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail upon executing bond for `25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, subject to reporting conditions and non-interference.

Firose Thayyil Vs the State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8091 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO. 1021/2014 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED :

¶8

FIROSE THAYYIL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.UMMER THAYYIL, THAYYIL HOUSE, PONGALLOOR, MAMPAD P.O., NILAMPOOR VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 542.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

2. SUMAYYATH MOHAMMED, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.MOHAMMED, THAYATH VEETIL, VELLOOR P.O., POOKKOTTUR VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 517.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH.V.S

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶17

¶18

B.A. No.8091 of 2014

¶19

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2014

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶22

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime

¶24

No.1021/2014 of Manjeri Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

¶25

The allegation against the petitioner is that he has tortured and harassed his wife, who is the de facto complainant, and treated her with cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC by demanding more dowry, after misappropriating her entire gold ornaments and money.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the de facto complainant before

¶28

the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Manjeri, which was

¶29

BA.8091/2014

¶30

: 2 :

¶31

referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It seems that the investigation of this case is practically over. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the continued investigation of this case. Matters being so, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner, especially when the offences involved are matrimonial offences.

¶32

In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for `25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-

¶33

(i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays and Saturdays, commencing from 26.11.2014 for a period of three months or till

¶34

BA.8091/2014

¶35

: 3 :

¶36

the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.

¶37

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

¶38

(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶39

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.

¶40

It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of

¶41

bail.

¶42

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶43

aks/22/11

¶44

// True Copy //

¶45

PA to Judge

Firose Thayyil v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firose Thayyil v. the State of Kerala

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

Baby @ Roshan Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Khaleefa Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Vs Station House Officer

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs Sub Inspector of Police