Allowed

Abdul Samad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Mar 2017Bail Appl./1259/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court granted bail to the petitioner, who was accused of offences including dowry harassment and criminal breach of trust, noting that the divorce had taken place and his detention was not necessary for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail after interrogation on executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum, subject to standard additional conditions.

Abdul Samad Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/30TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1259 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 625/2015 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

PETITIONER :

----------

ABDUL SAMAD

S/O.CHENATTU KUZHI MUHAMMED HAJI, PALAMTHODUVIL HOUSE, MONGAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 642.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS :

¶13

----------

¶14

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

¶15

2. S.I.OF POLICE

¶16

PAYYOLI POLICE STATION-673523

¶17

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶21

B.A.No.1259 of 2017

¶22

Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2017

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶25

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.625 of 2015 of Payyoli Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 376B, 498A, 406, 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

He was the husband of the first informant. The allegation is that he subjected her to cruelty and misappropriated her money and ornaments. Further he had sexual intercourse with her while they were living separately under an order of the Family court.

¶27

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

¶28

The divorce between the petitioner and the victim has already taken place. It appears that his detention is not necessary for effective investigation. So I am inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioner.

¶29

In the result, this application is allowed.

¶30

The petitioner shall be released on bail after interrogation on his executing a bond for Rs.Twenty five thousand only with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if he is arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶31

He shall not get himself involved in any other criminal case while he is on bail.

¶32

He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses.

¶33

B.A.No.1259 of 2017 2

¶34

He shall not destroy or tamper with the evidence.

¶35

He shall surrender his passport before the lower court concerned or if

¶36

he does not have one he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of

¶37

his release.

¶38

If he surrenders before the Magistrate this order is not applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

¶39

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶40

Sd/- K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶41

cms

¶42

/True copy/ P.S.to Judge

Abdul Samad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Samad 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

Muhammed Amirul Islam Vs State of Kerala

Bhuvanachandran Vs State of Kerala

Girija K Vs State of Kerala

Ummer Sakafi Vs State of Kerala

Ummer Sakafi Vs State of Kerala

Jamaluddeen Vs State of Kerala