Kerala High Court
Ramees vs The State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2014
Author: B.Kemal Pasha
Bench: B.Kemal Pasha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
MONDAY,THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
Bail Appl..No. 8336 of 2014 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN
----------
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
---------------------------------
RAMEES, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.SULAIAKHA, 365 (8/20)
KANNARKANDY,BALUSSERY, KOILANDY
KOHZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
RESPONDENT/STATE, COMPLAINANT & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VADAKARA , REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
3. ROZHNI FARZANA, AGED 22 YEARS,
D/O.ISMAIL, RESIDING AT KUZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NANMADA
KARIYATHANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 612.
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI.SREEJITH V.S.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
bp
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
B.A.No.8336 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2014
ORDER
Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.650/2014 of Balusseri Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66A(b) of Information Technology Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has tortured and harassed his wife, who is the de-facto complainant herein, and treated her with cruelty by demanding more dowry and gold ornaments after misappropriating her 45 soverings of gold ornaments and the amount received from the parents of the de- facto complainant. He has harassed her by demanding an amount of 30,00,000/- more. It is alleged that he has shared the nude B.A.8336 of 2014 2 photographs of the de-facto complainant, through whatsapp to other persons, including the family members of the de-facto complainant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the de-facto complainant had illicit relationship and by chance, the petitioner got a video clipping sent to him from one of his friends and he could realise that the lady in the video clipping is none other than the de-facto complainant, who is his wife. In order to make aware of that fact to the family members of the de-facto complainant, he forwarded it to the family members of the de-facto complainant. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is primafacie not believable. It seems that he had wilfully and deliberately defamed the de-facto complainant by sending her nude photographs through whatsapp to other persons. B.A.8336 of 2014 3 The allegations are very grave and serious. The investigation is not over. The other persons involved in the incident are yet to be identified. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and the present stage of investigation, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.
In the result, this bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE dl // TRUE COPY // PA to Judge