Allowed

Muhammed Rashid, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Aug 2020Bail Appl./555/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by an accused in a crime alleging offences under IPC 498A and the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. Bail was granted on stringent conditions due to the nature of the matrimonial dispute and pandemic guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed on stringent conditions including appearance for interrogation, bond of Rs.50,000/- with sureties, and adherence to pandemic guidelines.

Muhammed Rashid, Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

BA.No.555/2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶7

Bail Appl..No.555 OF 2020

¶8

CRIME NO.330/2019 OF PINARAYI POLICE STATION, KANNUR , Kannur

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

MUHAMMED RASHID, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.MOIDU, ZAINABA MANZIL, KADIRUR AMSOM, PONNIYAM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.14/1, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SINGAPURA VILLAGE P.O., VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.

¶14

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PINARAYI POLICE STATION, THALASSERY, KANNUR.

¶15

3 ADDL.R3 SAFWANA D/O SATAR, SAFAGHAR HOUSE, MAMPARM PO, PATHIRIYAD AMSHAM, PARAMPAYI, PINARAYI, KANNUR-670741.

¶16

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.02.2020 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2020 IN BA-555/2020

¶17

SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA.No.555/2020

O R D E R

Dated this the 10th day of August 2020

¶23

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

¶24

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.330/2019 of Pinarayi Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 498(A) IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

¶25

The prosecution case is that the petitioner married the defacto complainant on 1.7.2018. After the marriage they were residing at the petitioner's house for a short period of one month and thereafter for a period of three months at Bangalore. It is alleged that the petitioner harassed the defacto complainant mentally and physically. It is also alleged that the petitioner pronounced talaq in violation of the provisions of Muslim Woman (Protection of rights on Marriage) Act, 2019.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Notice was issued to the defacto complainant. Eventhough notice was served, there is no appearance for the defacto complainant.

¶27

BA.No.555/2020

¶28

¶29

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the victim. The allegation of cruelty and harassment are absolutely incorrect. The counsel submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence.

¶30

Eventhough the Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application submitted that if this Court is granting bail to the petitioner, stringent conditions may be imposed.

¶31

After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. It is true that there was a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Now, it is alleged that the petitioner pronounced talaq. According to the defacto complainant it is in violation of the Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. Eventhough notice was issued to the defacto complainant, there is no appearance for the defacto complainant. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that it is a matrimonial offence, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶32

Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re:

¶33

BA.No.555/2020

¶34

¶35

Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench of this Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.

¶36

Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

¶37

Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

¶38

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.

¶39

After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer propose to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.

¶40

The petitioner shall appear before the

¶41

BA.No.555/2020

¶42

¶43

Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶44

Petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.

¶45

Petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶46

The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic.

¶47

If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶50

JUDGE

¶51

Muhammed Rashid, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Rashid, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Usha, Vs State of Kerala

Sheena, Vs State of Kerala

Safeer Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Sathar Vs State of Kerala

Chandran, Vs the State of Kerala