Allowed

Shaludeen v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2017Bail Appl./5612/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to husband and father-in-law accused under Section 498A IPC in a matrimonial cruelty case, finding custodial interrogation unwarranted given the subsistence of marriage and absence of physical abuse allegations.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation, periodic appearance for investigation, and prohibition on inducement or new offences.

Shaludeen Vs the 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/19TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5612 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 762/2017 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

¶8

1. SHALUDEEN, S/O. ABDULLA, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NADIRA QUARTERS, KOLAVAYAL, AJANOOR P.O, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. ABDULLA, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NADIRA QUARTERS, KOLAVAYAL, AJANOOR P.O, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU,

¶11

SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI.

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶13

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031.

¶14

ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED

¶15

2. FATHIMA. M., D/O. ABDULSALAM. M.K., AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR AMBALATHARA OLD POLICE QUARTERS, NEAR GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, AMBALATHARA, PULLUR P.O., HOSDURG, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 531.

¶16

ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/08/2017 IN CRL.MA. NO.8943/2017.

¶17

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V. SREEJA.

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rs.

¶20

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶21

B.A.No.5612 of 2017

¶22

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2017

¶23

ORDER

¶24

1.This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

The petitioners herein are husband and father-in-law respectively of the de facto complainant. The marriage was solemnized in the year 2009. They are blessed with children as well. The marital relationship was marred by discord and the parties have been residing separately. It appears that complaint was later filed alleging matrimonial cruelty and a Crime was registered as Crime No.762 of 2017 of the Hosdurg Police Station under Section 498A of the IPC.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that they are innocent. According to the learned counsel, the filing of the complaint leveling exaggerated and inflated allegations is with a view to force the petitioner

¶27

B.A.No. 5612 of 2017 2

¶28

to accede to the illegal demands. It is submitted that the marriage still subsists. Notice was issued to the de

¶29

facto complainant but she had not chosen to appear before this Court.

¶30

4.The learned public proseuctor on instructions submits that there is no allegation that the petitioner had physically abused the de facto complainant.

¶31

5.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the near relationship between the parties,and the subsistence of the marriage, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation is unwarranted. I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶32

This petition will stand allowed on the following conditions:-

¶33

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.

¶34

B.A.No. 5612 of 2017 3

¶35

ii)The 1^st petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier. The 2^nd petitioner shall appear as and when directed.

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider

¶40

the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶43

IAP //True Copy\ P.A to Judge

Shaludeen v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaludeen 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

Sreelesh Vs State of Kerala

Shinoj Kumar K.K Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Ajesh v.Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran Achari. T.R Vs the State of Kerala