Allowed

Abdul Rahim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2018Bail Appl./2324/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the accused in a matrimonial case involving alleged cruelty, bigamy, and alleged misappropriation of dowry. The court imposed several special conditions regarding passport surrender and interaction with the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners released on bail on executing a bond with two sureties. Conditions imposed on appearance, passport surrender, and non-contact with complainant.

Abdul Rahim Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2018 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1940

¶4

IN CRMC 301/2018 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY IN OS 425/2017 of MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY

¶5

CRIME NO. 147/2018 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION , KANNUR

¶6

PETITIONER'S/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2

¶7

1 ABDUL RAHIM,

¶8

S/O.SAIYAD MUHAMMED, AGED 50 YEARS, JAMALIYA MANZIL, RAILWAY GATE, POST MUZHAPILLANGAD, KANNUR, PIN-670662.

¶9

2 SAINABA, D/O.LATE MOHAMMED, AGED 32 YEARS, AK MANZIL, KGM ROAD, POST MANJESWAR, KASARKODE, PIN-671323.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.J.VIMAL KUM.NIHARIKA HEMA RAJ

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.147/2018 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. K.K. SHEEBA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

MIN

¶16

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

¶17

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

¶18

B.A.No.2324 of 2018

¶19

======================= Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2018

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application for anticipatory bail, filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

The petitioners are the first and the second accused in the case registered as Crime No. 147 of 2018 of the Edakkad Police Station under Sections 498A, 420, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The first petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant. The second petitioner is the second wife of the first petitioner. The marriage between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant had taken place in the year 1995. The allegation against the first petitioner is that during the past two or three years, he has been behaving in a cruel manner towards the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that he has misappropriated 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments given to the de facto

¶24

B.A.No.2324 of 2018

¶25

¶26

complainant at the time of her marriage. The allegation against the second petitioner is that on 05.01.2018, at the house of the de facto complainant, she made an attempt to cause hurt to the de facto complainant with a knife. It is alleged that the de facto complainant obstructed the blow with the knife with her hand and she sustained injuries on her left elbow.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary and also the report filed by the Investigating Officer.

¶28

Admittedly, the marriage between the first petitioner and the de facto complainant was in the year 1995. The allegation is that the first petitioner misappropriated 80 sovereigns of gold ornaments given to the de facto complainant at the time of her marriage. It is also alleged that the first petitioner has contracted second marriage with the second petitioner. But, it may be noted that the parties are Muslims. The allegation

¶29

B.A.No.2324 of 2018

¶30

¶31

against the second petitioner is that she made an attempt to caused hurt to the de facto complainant with a knife. The case diary contains copy of the wound certificate issued in respect of the de facto complainant after her examination by a doctor at the hospital. It shows that the de facto complainant had sustained only a small abrasion on her left elbow. Considering the totality of the allegations raised against the petitioners and the other circumstances of the case, it appears that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary to have an effective investigation in the case. The apprehension of the prosecution is that on getting bail, the petitioners may intimidate the de facto complainant and repeat the offences. Appropriate conditions can be imposed to avoid such a contingency. Considering all these aspects, I find that the discretion of the Court can be exercised in favour of the petitioners to grant them the benefit of pre-arrest bail.

¶32

In the result, the petition is allowed and it is ordered

B.A.No.2324 of 2018

as follows:

The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of their arrest by the police in Crime No.147 of 2018 of Edakkad Police Station.

¶37

The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer between 9.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m on all Saturdays for a period of three months from the date of their release on bail.

¶38

The first petitioner shall surrender his passport in the Magistrate's Court concerned within three days from the date of his release on bail. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect in that Court within that period.

¶39

The petitioners shall not in any manner intimidate or influence the de facto complainant or other prosecution witnesses in the case. The second petitioner shall not in any manner contact or try to contact the de

B.A.No.2324 of 2018

facto complainant.

The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala

¶44

without the prior permission of the jurisdictional Court concerned.

¶45

The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by him in writing to do so.

¶46

If any of the petitioners violates any of the conditions of bail, it is open to the Court having jurisdiction over the case to cancel his/her bail without

¶47

any further orders from this Court, but in accordance with law.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

¶50

rp/23.05

¶51

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE.

Abdul Rahim v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahim 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

Krishnakumar @ Kichu Vs State of Kerala

Geo Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Baby Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Pallivila Salim Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Sambhu Vs State of Kerala