Abdul Aseeb vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 18, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1445701

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/1445701
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Feb 18, 2022
Case Number: Bail Appl./696/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Aseeb

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....crime no.65/2021 of vanitha police station,malappuram district, alleging commission of offences under sections 323, 406, 498a & 377 r/w. section 34 of the indian penal code.3. the allegation is that, after marriage of the petitioner with thede facto complainant on 5.4.2021 and till 2.10.2021, the petitioner had subjected the de facto complainant to unnatural sex and when she had objected to the same, she was subjected to physical cruelty by hitting and kicking her. it is also alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated 44 sovereigns of gold ornaments gifted to the de facto complainant by her family. it is submitted that, thereafter, a further demand for an amount of rs.5 lakhs was made. it is alleged that the petitioner along with the other accused also ill-treated the de facto complainant.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioneris absolutely innocent in the matter. it is submitted that the allegations are raised to settle other matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and de facto complainant. it is submitted that the petitioner had no occasion to treat the de facto complainant with any cruelty as alleged. it is submitted that, at any rate, considering the nature of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the case.5. i have heard the learned public prosecutor also. b.a.no.696/2022 36. the learned public prosecutor has pointed out the circumstancesof the case as appearing from the first information statement of the de facto complainant. it is submitted that the case is under investigation and if the allegations raised by the de facto complainant are true, the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious.7. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, i am of the view that the investigation can be carried out without custodialinterrogation of the petitioner. however, i make it clear that if the investigation reveals any requirement of custodial interrogation, it.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 696 OF 2022 CRIME NO.65/2021 OF VANITHA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ABDUL ASEEB AGED 30 YEARS AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT EDAKKADAN HOUSE, MINI ROAD, CHANGUVETTY, KOTTAKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676503., PIN - 676503 BY ADVS. NIRMAL V NAIR M.ANEESH RAHUL S.NATH RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: SRI. NOUSHAD K.A. (SR.PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.696/2022 2

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.65/2021 of Vanitha Police Station,Malappuram District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 323, 406, 498A & 377 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation is that, after marriage of the petitioner with the

de facto complainant on 5.4.2021 and till 2.10.2021, the petitioner had subjected the de facto complainant to unnatural sex and when she had objected to the same, she was subjected to physical cruelty by hitting and kicking her. It is also alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated 44 sovereigns of gold ornaments gifted to the de facto complainant by her family. It is submitted that, thereafter, a further demand for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was made. It is alleged that the petitioner along with the other accused also ill-treated the de facto complainant.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the allegations are raised to settle other matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and de facto complainant. It is submitted that the petitioner had no occasion to treat the de facto complainant with any cruelty as alleged. It is submitted that, at any rate, considering the nature of the allegations, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in the case.

5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. B.A.No.696/2022 3

6. The learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out the circumstances

of the case as appearing from the First Information Statement of the de facto complainant. It is submitted that the case is under investigation and if the allegations raised by the de facto complainant are true, the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the investigation can be carried out without custodial

interrogation of the petitioner. However, I make it clear that if the investigation reveals any requirement of custodial interrogation, it will be open to the prosecution to approach this Court for permission to take the petitioner into custody.

8. In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Crime No. 65/2021 of Vanitha Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.65/2021 of Vanitha Police Station as and when summoned to do so;

(iii) Petitioner shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.65/2021 of Vanitha Police Station; B.A.No.696/2022 4

(iv) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail. If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No. 65/2021 of Vanitha Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE acd B.A.No.696/2022 5 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 696/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 65 OF 2021 DATED 24-11-2021 OF THE MALAPPURAM VANITHA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (MASKED) Annexure 2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 15-11-2021 IN CRIME NO. 533/2021 OF THE KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT Annexure 3 THE FAIR COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-1-2022 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 1294/2021 IN CRIME NO. SESSION, MANJERI

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Abdul Aseeb vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.