Allowed

Peer Muhammed, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Feb 2024Bail Appl./477/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by the first accused in Crime No.797/2023 alleging matrimonial cruelty and grievous hurt. Noting the absence of medical records supporting the hurt allegation and that custody could foreclose settlement chances, the court allowed bail with conditions including surrender for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail: surrender by 20.02.2024; release on Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties if arrested, subject to conditions on conduct and cooperation.

Peer Muhammed, Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 24TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 477 OF 2024

¶6

Crime No.797 of 2023 of Mankara Police Station, Palakkad,

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

PEER MUHAMMED,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED KASIM, RED FIELD, KAMRAJ ROAD, TAMIL NADU, HOUSING
BOARD, E-3- DOOR, GOVT. STAFF QUARTERS, COIMBATORE, PIN - 641015
BY ADVS.
A.V.INDIRA
AKHIL RAJ

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682031

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SR.PP-SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.A. No. 477 of 2024

¶16

..2..

¶17

SOPHY THOMAS, J.

¶18

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

¶19

B.A. No. 477 of 2024

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Dated this the 13^th day of February, 2024

¶23

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438

¶24

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the 1^st accused in Crime No.797 of 2023 of Mankara Police Station, Palakkad, registered under Sections 498A and 326 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶25

The prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner, who is the husband of the de facto complainant, subjected her to matrimonial cruelties, both physical and mental, and caused grievous hurt to the de facto complainant, along with other accused persons, who are the in-laws of the de facto complainant.

¶26

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶27

B.A. No. 477 of 2024

¶28

..3..

¶29

Public Prosecutor.

¶30

4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶31

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in the year 2016, the de facto complainant had filed a complaint against the petitioner, and his relatives, and Crime No. 514 of 2016 of Mankara Police Station, Palakkad was registered. That were case was settled between them and thereafter, they living separately. Now the petitioner is residing at Coimbatore, and the de facto complainant is at Palakkad. Alleging the very same incidents, in the earlier complaint, the de facto complainant lodged FIR 797 of 2023.

¶32

6. The prosecution records would reveal that, after settling the earlier case, the petitioner, and the de facto complainant lived together and the allegations in the present crime is about the ill-treatment meted out to her by the petitioner after their reunion. Though Section 326 of the IPC is alleged, no medical records are available to show that she was physically assaulted by the

¶33

B.A. No. 477 of 2024

¶34

..4..

¶35

petitioner. Moreover, since this being a matrimonial dispute, the chances of settlement, if any, would be foreclosed forever, if the petitioner is sent to jail.

¶36

6. So this Court is inclined to allow the petition, on the following terms:-

¶37

i. Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 20.02.2024, and subject himself for interrogation. The Investigating Officer shall collect all materials/evidence which are relevant for the investigation, from the petitioner.

¶38

ii. In the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer;

¶39

iii. Thereafter, the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶40

iv. Petitioner shall not contact, influence or intimidate

¶41

B.A. No. 477 of 2024

¶42

..5..

¶43

the de facto complainant or her family members and

¶44

shall not tamper with the investigation.

¶45

v. Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶46

vi. In case of violation of the bail conditions, the jurisdictional court is empowered to cancel his bail, in

accordance with law.

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS

JUDGE

RMV

Peer Muhammed, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peer Muhammed, 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

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prabha Kumar ( Died )

Abi @ Abin Sabu, Vs State of Kerala

Suhail Vs State of Kerala

Ameer, Vs State of Kerala

Shahida Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ali Darbesh Khan Vs State of Kerala