IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 2992 of 2008() 1. SAFEENA.K., D/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, AGED 22 ... Petitioner Vs 1. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ... Respondent 2. K.M.ABDUL SHUKOOR, S/O.MOOSA HAJI, For Petitioner :SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT Dated :02/09/2008 O R D E R R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.2992 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008 ORDER
Petitioner is the defacto complainant in two prosecutions,
the first under Section 498 A I.P.C and the latter, inter alia,
under Section 448 I.P.C, which are pending against the 2nd
respondent herein. The 2nd respondent is the former husband of
the petitioner/defacto complainant. In the prosecution under
Section 498 A I.P.C, the 2nd respondent was granted regular bail
subject to conditions. It is while he was on bail that the alleged
second incident had taken place. The petitioner has come to this
Court with this petition now raising a grievance that the 2nd
respondent has abused his freedom and liberty granted under
the earlier order granting bail. It is, in these circumstances,
prayed that the bail granted to the 2nd respondent may be
2. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned Public Prosecutor reports that it is true that while
the 2nd respondent was on bail, he had committed the latter
crime. That crime has been investigated. Final report has
already been filed and cognizance has been taken against the 2nd
Crl.M.C. No.2992 of 2008 2
3. Notice was given to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd
respondent has entered appearance. He has filed a statement.
The allegations raised are stoutly denied. It is contended that
the petitioner is interested only in raising vexatious allegations.
On account of disagreement in the matrimony, divorce has been
effected. The 2nd respondent has no intention of going to the
petitioner or in any way disturbing her. The allegations in the
latter crime have been raised transparently with vexatious
intent. The police is acting in a partisan manner to oblige the
petitioner. The 2nd respondent has not committed any crime.
The 2nd respondent has no intention of entering the jurisdiction
of Chakkarakallu Police Station except to visit his aged parents.
He is employed at Bangalore and he will not be entering the
Chakkarakallu Police Station except once a month to visit his
parents. The bail granted to the 2nd respondent does not deserve
to be cancelled. Appropriate safeguards may be insisted,
submits the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
4. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. It
would be presumptuous on the part of this Court to enter a
specific finding as to the allegations raised in the latter crime are
correct or not. I am satisfied in the peculiar facts and
Crl.M.C. No.2992 of 2008 3
circumstances of this case that appropriate safeguards can be
insisted and the bail granted to the 2nd respondent need not be
5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
subject to the further stipulation that the 2nd respondent shall
continue to remain in bail on condition that he shall not enter the
jurisdiction of Chakkarakallu Police Station until both the cases
against him are disposed of without prior permission of the
learned Magistrate, except once a month on the Second
Saturday and the following Sunday of every English Calendar
month, that too for the purpose of visiting his parents only.
P.A to Judge