Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2021 IN CMP 4458/2021 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, PONNANI CRIME NO.626/2021 OF KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/DE-FACTO COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.626/2021 OF KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION: HAMSA, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O ABUBAKKAR, PANDHAPLAKKAL HOUSE, KUDALLOR P.O.AANAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -679 554. BY ADVS. R.SURAJ KUMAR SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL ANJANA R.S. RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT/ACCUSED 1 AND 3 IN CRIME NO.626/2021 OF KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 102. 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 571. 4 FATHIMA, AGED 59 YEARS W/O MUHAMMED MUSALIYAR, VADAKKATHU VALAPPIL HOUSE, AYANKALAM P.O.UNNIYAMBALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 594. 5 FATHIMA SAHLA, AGED 18 YEARS, D/O BALGHESE, VADAKKATHU VALAPPIL HOUSE, AYANKALAM P.O., UNNIYAMBALAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 594.
BY ADVS. M.P.SHAMEEM AHAMED P.P.HASHICK(K/2604/1999) SRI VIPIN NARAYAN (SR. PP) THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, who is the de-facto complainant in Crime No.626 of 2021 of Kuttipuram Police Station, Malappuram District, has approached this Court challenging Annexure - A5 order, through which bail was granted to accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.626 of 2021 of Kuttipuram Police Station. The deceased daughter of the petitioner was married to the son of the 4 th respondent / 1st accused in the case. The 5th respondent / accused No.2 is the sister-in-law of the deceased daughter of the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that owing to mental and
physical cruelty meted out to the daughter of the petitioner and on account of the fact that the accused had also cast aspersions on the chastity of the deceased daughter of the petitioner, she committed suicide after killing her 8 month old baby. It is submitted that the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur very casually and without considering the matter in any detail, granted bail to the accused only on the ground that the 1 st accused is a 59 year old women and the 2nd accused (sister-in-law of the petitioner’s deceased daughter) is an 18 year old girl. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate did not consider the heinousness of the offence, the requirement of custodial interrogation, the possibility of tampering with evidence and such other factors which should have weighed with the court while deciding the bail application of respondents 4 and 5. It is also pointed out that the Annexure - A5
order does not indicate that the mandatory provision in Section 437
of the Cr.P.C requiring the prosecutor to be heard was complied with before granting bail.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the
learned counsel for the petitioner may be justified in arguing that Annexure - A5 order does not disclose any application of mind by the learned Magistrate to the relevant facts, by passage of time it may not be necessary to consider the validity of Annexure - A5
order as investigation has been completed and final report has
already been filed on 29.04.2022 and the matter is now pending as S.C.No.1194 of 2022 before the Sessions Court, Manjeri.
4. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5
seeks time to address arguments. However, considering the order
that I propose to pass, I do not deem it necessary to adjourn this matter any further.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in
contending that Annexure - A5 order was passed in a casual manner and without considering the usual parameters which would weigh with the court while considering a bail application where a very heinous offence has been committed. However, the fact remains that Annexure - A5 order granting bail was granted after respondents 4 and 5 (accused 1 and 2) were arrested and brought before the Court on 16.11.2021. By now the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed. Therefore, it does not appear that at this point of time, any pre-trial detention is necessary. Therefore, I close this Crl.M.C without interfering with Annexure - A5 only on account of the fact that by passage of time, it has become unnecessary to consider the challenge Annexure -A5 on merits. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6183/2021 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 15.11.2021 IN CRIME NO 626/2021 OF KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.11.2021 Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE REMANDED REPORT DATED 16.11.2021 IN CRIME NO 626/2021 OF KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION Annexure A5 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
16.11.2021 IN C.M.P NO 4458/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT 1 PONNANI (IN CHARGE OF THE COURT OF JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE THIRUR)