Allowed

Ashraf K.K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Nov 2017Bail Appl./3952/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to two accused persons facing charges under Sections 498A and 323 read with 34 of the IPC for alleged domestic assault. Bail conditions included interrogation within ten days, cooperation with investigation, no inducement of witnesses, and no repeat offences.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation within ten days, cooperation with investigation, no inducement of witnesses, and execution of bond of Rs. 40,000 with two solv

Ashraf K.K. Vs State of Kerala — Domestic Violence | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/22ND KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3952 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 157/2017 OF KATHIRUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. ASHRAF K.K.S/O.ABUBACKER,

¶9

AGED 55 YEARS, RUKHIYA MAHAL, UMMENCHIRA, ERUVATTY, THALASSERY.

¶10

2. SAFIRA K., W/O.K.ASHRAF, AGED 40 YEARS, RUKHIYA MAHAL, UMMENCHIRA, ERUVATTY, THALASSERY.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN SMT.P.SHEEBA

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADIRUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

*ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED :

¶15

2. NADUKKANDY RANDUPURAYIL NABEESA, D/O. ASSU, “SAFA MARVA”, MANANTHERI P.O. THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT -670643.

¶16

*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 30/6/2017 IN CRL.M.A. NO. 6955/2017

¶17

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU S.

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶21

B.A. No. 3952 of 2017

¶22

Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2017

¶23

ORDER

¶24

1.This application is filed under section 438 of the Code of

¶25

Criminal Procedure.

¶26

2.The petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No.157 of 2017 of Kathirur Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under sections 498(A) and 323 read with 34 of the IPC.

¶27

3.The de facto complainant is the former wife of the 1^st petitioner. According to her, the marriage between the 1^st petitioner and the de facto complainant was solemnized in the year 1984. They have two daughters who are now aged 32 years and 28 years respectively. She was illtreated by the 1^st petitioner all through their married life.While so the 1^st petitioner married the 2^nd petitioner. On 10.2.2017 the de facto complainant went to the house

¶28

BA 3952/2017 2

¶29

of the petitioners and she was assaulted. She filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate which was referred to the police and the crime was registered .

¶30

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that more than three decades have elapsed after marriage and the children have all grown up. The parties have been residing separately since 1995. He had pronounced talak and thereafter in the year 1997 married the 2^nd petitioner. On the date of incident, the de facto complainant, her daughters and sons-in-law had trespassed into his house and had assaulted the petitioners. He refers to the wound certificate produced as Annexure 1 and 2 to substantiate this fact. He also states that a complaint was filed before the Womens Commission by the de facto complainant in the year 2006 and to settle the disputes once and for all, he had assigned 13.5 cents in their favor as evidenced by Annexure–3. According to the learned counsel the only intention of the de facto complainant to harass him in his

¶31

BA 3952/2017

¶32

¶33

old age and prays for orders.

¶34

5.Though the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer, it is fairly submitted that the de facto complainant has not sustained any physical injury.

¶35

6.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the sequence of events, the age of the petitioners as well as the de facto complainant and attendant facts, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are called for in the instant case .

¶36

7.This petition will stand allowed on the following conditions:-

¶37

i). The petitioners shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶38

ii)The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶39

BA 3952/2017

¶40

¶41

iii)The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶42

iv)The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶43

v) If they surrender before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶44

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶47

vps 16/11

¶48

/True Copy/

¶49

PS to Judge

Ashraf K.K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf K.K. 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

Ajesh v.Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Shaludeen Vs the State of Kerala

Abubacker Aka Kunjumon Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sijumon Vs State of Kerala

S.Panicker Vs State of Kerala