Allowed

Mujeeb v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jul 2016Bail Appl./4783/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought pre-arrest bail under S. 438 CrPC in alleged dowry harassment case. Court allowed bail on conditions including periodic reporting, restriction on leaving jurisdiction, and no contact with complainant for two months.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; petitioners released on bond with two solvent sureties subject to conditions of reporting, residence restriction, and no contact with complainant for two months.

Mujeeb Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2016/28TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4783 of 2016 ---------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. MUJEEB, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, CHENTHARA HOUSE, VALLAM, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542.

¶8

2. ABOOBACKER, AGED 76, S/O. KOCUPILLA, CHENTHARA HOUSE, VALLAM, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542.

¶9

3. ASIA, W/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 68, CHEMTHARA HOUSE, VALLAM, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

P.UBAID, J.

¶17

============================

¶18

B.A.No.4783 of 2016

¶19

============================

¶20

Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2016

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners herein seek pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.642 of 2016 of the Tirur Police Station, registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

¶23

Code.

¶24

The defacto complainant in the crime is the legally wedded wife of the first petitioner. The others are his parents. The first petitioner married the defacto complainant in June 2014, but the lady has been residing separately since 01.08.2015. Her case is that she had been mentally and physically iltreated by her husband and the in-laws by demanding more dowry and ornaments, and otherwise. On a perusal of the case records, I find that the complainant's matrimony with the first petitioner stands practically

¶25

B.A.No.4783 of 2016 2

¶26

strained, and there is reason to believe that the present complaint is the result of the strained matrimony. The genuineness of the allegations of cruelty is a matter for decision on trial. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not felt necessary in the present circumstances where necessary materials can be collected by the police even without such interrogation. It would suffice that the petitioners are directed to report before the Investigating Officer periodically for necessary interrogation, if and when felt necessary.

¶27

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing bond with two solvent sureties for ₹40,000/(Rupees Forty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, as the case may be, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No.642 of 2016 of the Tirur Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶28

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when required by him for the

¶29

B.A.No.4783 of 2016 3

¶30

purpose of interrogation as part of investigation, and the first petitioner shall so report between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Saturdays for a period of two months.

¶31

b) The petitioners shall not leave the limits of the Tirur Police Station for a period of two months.

¶32

c) The petitioner shall not have any contact with the complainant and other material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise except for the purpose of any settlement of the dispute, in case anybody intervened for such a course.

Sd/-

P.UBAID, JUDGE

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Mujeeb v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujeeb 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vincent Vs State of Kerala

Shibin Vs State of Kerala

Akil.v.Raj Vs the Station House Officer, Balaramapuram Police Station

Abhijith Vs State of Kerala

Akhil K.S. Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala