Kunchal Vs. State of Kerala

Kunchal vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Aug 12, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1161915

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1161915
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice V.K.Mohanan
Decided On: Aug 12, 2014
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kunchal

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....pattambi police station, petitioners who are accused numbers 2, 3 and 5 to 9 preferred the above application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure.2. the prosecution allegation is that the marriage between the de facto complainant and the 1st accused was solomnized on 28.07.2011 as per customary rites of muslims and the de facto complainant was subjected to harassment, both physically and mentally, demanding more dowry and thus, the accused, 9 in numbers have committed the offences punishable under section 498a of the indian penal code. b.a no.5932/2014 2 3. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned public prosecutor.4. the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present crime was registered connected with a matrimonial dispute and the petitioners are no way connected with the offence alleged against them.5. the learned public prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the allegation against the accused are general in nature and no specific overt act is alleged against the petitioners.6. having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and considering the submissions made by the counsel, i am of the view that this petition can be allowed, but, subject to conditions. in the result, this petition is allowed and, accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners in crime no.165/2014 of pattambi police station, they shall be b.a no.5932/2014 3 released on bail on each of them executing a bond for `35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for like amount, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the above crime and on the following further conditions: i) petitioners 3, 4 and 6 are directed to report before the investigating officer in the above crime between 10 a.m and 11 a.m on every second saturday. other petitioners are directed to report before the investigating officer as and when.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE12H DAY OF AUGUST201421ST SRAVANA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 5932 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 165/2014 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION ,PALAKKAD DISTRICT ------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2,3 AND5TO9: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNCHAL, W/O.HAMSA MUSLIAR (LATE), AGED65YEARS, PARAYIL HOUSE, MELE PATTAMBI P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 303.

2. SAINABHA, D/O.HAMSA MUSLIAR (LATE), AGED34YEARS, PARAYIL HOUSE, MELE PATTAMBI P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 303.

3. ABDUL KHADER, S/O.HAMSA MUSLIAR (LATE),AGED38YEARS, PARAYIL HOUSE,MELE PATTAMBI P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 303.

4. ABDUL SAMAD, S/O.HAMSA MUSLIAR (LATE), AGED46YEARS, PARAYIL HOUSE,MELE PATTAMBI P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 303.

5. AYISHA, W/O.ABDUL SAMAD,AGED36YEARS, PARAYIL HOUSE, MELE PATTAMBI P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 303.

6. ABOOBACKER, S/O.HAMSA MUSLIAR (LATE),AGED48YEARS, PARAYIL HOUSE,MELE PATTAMBI P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 303.

7. NAJMA, W/O.HABEEB RAHMAN,AGED25YEARS, PARAYIL HOUSE, MELE PATTAMBI P.O., PATTAMBIL, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 303. BY ADV. SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED sts 2/- -2- BA.NO.5932/2014 RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, THORUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1208-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V.K.MOHANAN, J =========================== B.A No. 5932 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 12th day of August, 2014 ORDER

Apprehending arrest in Crime No. 165/2014 of Pattambi Police Station, petitioners who are accused numbers 2, 3 and 5 to 9 preferred the above application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The prosecution allegation is that the marriage between the de facto complainant and the 1st accused was solomnized on 28.07.2011 as per customary rites of Muslims and the de facto complainant was subjected to harassment, both physically and mentally, demanding more dowry and thus, the accused, 9 in numbers have committed the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. B.A No.5932/2014 2 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present crime was registered connected with a matrimonial dispute and the petitioners are no way connected with the offence alleged against them.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the allegation against the accused are general in nature and no specific overt act is alleged against the petitioners.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and considering the submissions made by the counsel, I am of the view that this petition can be allowed, but, subject to conditions. In the result, this petition is allowed and, accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners in Crime No.165/2014 of Pattambi Police Station, they shall be B.A No.5932/2014 3 released on bail on each of them executing a bond for `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the above crime and on the following further conditions: i) Petitioners 3, 4 and 6 are directed to report before the Investigating Officer in the above crime between 10 a.m and 11 a.m on every second Saturday. Other petitioners are directed to report before the Investigating Officer as and when required. ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence and try to influence any witnesses. iii) Petitioners shall not interfere with the investigation. Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE vdv //True Copy// P.A to Judge

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Kunchal vs State of Kerala Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice V.K.Mohanan