Kerala High Court
Muhammed Mushtafa vs State Of Kerala on 16 October, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019/24TH ASWINA, 1941
Bail Appln.No.7182 OF 2019
CRIME NO.1643/2019 OF Pathanapuram Police Station, Kollam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :-
1 MUHAMMED MUSHTAFA,
AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, NISHA MINZIL,
NADUKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2 SHAHUL HAMEED,
AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O.MUHAMMED MUSTAFA, NISHA MANZIL,
NADUKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
3 SHAHIDA,
AGED 52 YEARS,
W/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, NISHA MANZIL,
NADUKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
4 ANEESHA,
AGED 32 YEARS,
W/O.MALIK BASHEER, AJMAL MANZIL,
NADUKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
5 NISHA,
AGED 34 YEARS,
W/O.MUHAMMED ASHRAF, MADAKKALIL HOUSE,
ALQAPPARA, MANIMALA VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
6 ASHRAF,
AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O.IBRAHIM RAWTHER,
MADAKKALIL HOUSE, ALQAPPARA,
MANIMALA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
Bail Appln.No.7182 of 2019
..2..
7 SHEEJA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
W/O.SULFIKKAR, PALLIKIZHAKETHILL,
NADUKUNNU, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
8 SHEEBA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU,
PATHADY, BHAREETHIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.
9 SHIBU @ ISMAIL,
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O.ABOOBAKER, SAJI MANZIL, MALOOR P.O.,
PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
10 KICHU @ IRSHAD,
AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O.SHAJAHAN, IRDHAD MANZIL,
NADUKKUNNU KATTIKKAL, PATHANAPURAM.P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUBHASH SYRIAC
SMT.SHEEBA JOSEPH
SRI.S.SREEJITH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682 031.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-689 695.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MS.M.N.MAYA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appln.No.7182 of 2019
..3..
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. The 1st petitioner is the son of the 2 nd petitioner and the 3rd petitioner. The petitioners 4 and 5 are the sisters of the 1st petitioner and petitioner Nos.6 to 10 are the relatives of the 1st petitioner.
3. The prosecution case is that on 6.8.2017, the 1 st petitioner married the de facto complainant and ever since the date of marriage, the 1st petitioner and the petitioners 2 and 3 have been continuously ill-treating the de facto complainant by demanding more money and gold ornaments and on 20.9.2019, when the relatives of the de facto complainant came to meet the de facto complainant at the house of the petitioners, petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5 caught hold of the de facto complainant and tortured her physically. While so, the rest of the petitioners assaulted the father of the de facto complainant and her relatives and the 1st petitioner pushed the Bail Appln.No.7182 of 2019 ..4..
de facto complainant and due to the push the de facto complainant's child fell down and thereby the petitioners committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.
5. Initially the crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. When the case has come up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that offences under Section 324 of IPC and under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 have been deleted subsequently. The learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that Accused Nos.7 to 10 were deleted from the array of the accused.
6. Annexure-A1 crime was registered against the de facto complainant and three others as Crime No.1640/2019 by the Pathanapuram police for the offences punishable under Bail Appln.No.7182 of 2019 ..5..
Sections 451, 323, 324, 326, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the FIR against the petitioners in the instant crime (Crime No.1643/2019 of Pathanapuram Police Station) was lodged after registering Annexure-A1 FIR as a counterblast to the crime registered against the de facto complainant and three others. Annexure.A1 further discloses that the de facto complainant and her relatives came to the 1 st petitioner's house at Pathanapuram to sort out the family issues and assaulted the 1st petitioner and her sister whereby the 1st petitioner sustained a fracture in his hand.
7. Having taken into consideration of the fact that Annexure.A1 crime was registered against the de facto complainant and three others as Crime No.1640/2019 by the Pathanapuram Police for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 323, 324, 326, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the case is pending investigation, there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the present crime has been foisted against the Bail Appln.No.7182 of 2019 ..6..
petitioners as a counterblast to Annexure.A1 crime registered against the de facto complainant and three others. It is further brought out that offences under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 have been deleted subsequently. The petitioners 7 to 10 have already been deleted from the array of the accused by the police.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and also in view of the fact that the present case was registered on account of matrimonial dispute between the parties, this is a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioners 1 to 6. In the result, the petition is allowed and it is ordered as follows:-
1) The petitioners 1 to 6 shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest by the police in Crime No.1643/2019 of Pathanapuram Police Station on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.Bail Appln.No.7182 of 2019
..7..
2) The petitioners 1 to 6 shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by him in writing to do so.
3) The petitioners 1 to 6 shall not in any manner intimidate or influence the prosecution witnesses.
4) If the petitioners 1 to 6 violate any of the above conditions of bail, it is open to the Court having jurisdiction over the case to cancel their bail without any further orders from this Court but in accordance with law.
Sd/-
N.ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE skj