Partly allowed

Shabad M.A v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2021Bail Appl./7933/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dealt with an anticipatory bail application under Sections 498A r/w. 34 IPC. The court rejected bail for the male accused but granted it for the female accused subject to standard conditions including bonding and reporting.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed for the 2nd petitioner subject to bond of Rs.50,000, reporting, and non-interference conditions. Bail dismissed for the 1st petitioner.

Shabad M.A Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 7933 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.586/2021 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

¶8

SHABAD M.A.,AGED 28 YEARS S/O.MOIDEEN KUNHI, MEETHALADY HOUSE, PALLANGOD, ADOOR, URDOOR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 543

¶9

NASEEMA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. MOIDEEN KUNHI, MEETHALADY HOUSE, PALLANGOD ADDOR, URDOOR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 543

¶10

BY ADVS. I.V.PRAMOD K.V.SASIDHARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

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

¶13

2 ADDL.R2.SAFA AGED 21 YEARS W/O. SHABAD, GAREEB NAVAS MANZIL, UJAMPADI, PARAPPA, KASARAGOD-671321 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 03/11/2021 IN CRL.MA.1/2021

¶14

BY ADVS.MUHAMMED YASIL AISWARIYA LEKSHMI LAL

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN (SR.PP)

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.7933/2021

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶22

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.586/2021 of Adhur Police Station, Kasaragod District alleging commission of offences under Sections 498A r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The allegation against the petitioners is that after the marriage of the 1^st petitioner with the de facto complainant on 18.8.2019, the 1^st petitioner left for the Gulf Countries in connection with his employment and after returning back, he together with the 2^nd petitioner, who is his mother used to treat the de facto complainant with cruelty and harass her mentally and physically demanding more dowry. It is also alleged that in the month of May, 2021, the de facto complainant had to call her parents owing to severe physical harassment by the 1^st petitioner and when the parents of the de facto complainant had come to take her away, the 1^st petitioner attacked the father of the de facto complainant and he sustained injuries.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1^st petitioner had, after filing the anticipatory bail application, left India in connection with his employment and therefore, the anticipatory bail application in so far it relates to the 1^st petitioner is not being pressed. In so far as the 2^nd petitioner is concerned, it is submitted that the allegations are totally false and no sort of physical harassment has been meted out to the de facto complainant by the 2^nd petitioner. It is also submitted that in respect of an incident which

¶25

B.A.No.7933/2021

¶26

¶27

was alleged to have taken place in the month of May, 2021, a complaint was filed by the de facto complainant only in the month of August, 2021. It is submitted that the delay in filing the complaint itself suggests that the allegations are totally false.

¶28

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation in the matter is progressing and the grant of bail, if at all, must be in conditions to ensure that the petitioners do not interfere with the investigation in any manner.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant would submit with reference to the documents produced along with the objection filed in this bail application that the father of the de facto complainant had sustained severe injuries owing to assault by the 1^st petitioner. It is submitted that later in the month of May, 2021, the father of the de facto complainant had passed away. It is submitted with reference to Annexures-R2(c) and R2(d) that the allegations against the petitioners are quite serious and they are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶31

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the custodial interrogation of the 2^nd petitioner may not be necessary for a proper investigation into the matter, I am of the opinion that the 2^nd petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

¶32

In the result, this application for anticipatory bail in so far as it

¶33

B.A.No.7933/2021 4

¶34

relates to the 2^nd petitioner is allowed. It is directed that the 2^nd petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 586/2021 of Adhur Police Station, subject to the following conditions:-

¶35

(i) The 2^nd petitioner shall execute 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 jurisdictional Court;

¶36

(ii) The 2^nd petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in Crime No. 586/2021 of Adhur Police Station as and when called upon to do so;

¶37

(iii) The 2^nd petitioner shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the de facto complainant or any witness in Crime No. 586/2021 of Adhur Police Station;

¶38

(iv) The 2^nd petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶39

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.586/2021 of Adhur Police Station, Kasaragod District may file an application before the jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.

¶40

The bail application in so far as it relates to the 1^st petitioner will stand dismissed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶43

acd

Shabad M.A v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabad M.A 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

Sajith Shanavas, Vs State of Kerala

Abdulla Shameer Vs State of Kerala

Xxxx Vs State of Kerala

Vijil Paulose Vs State of Kerala

Thomas @ Tomy Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Shareef @ Kunhnjon Vs State of Kerala