Sainaba vs Sayid Muhammed Hameed on 23 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sainaba vs Sayid Muhammed Hameed on 23 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 123 of 2010()


1. SAINABA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SAYID MUHAMMED HAMEED
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

4. STATE OF KERALA ,REP BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.A.P.SUBHASH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :23/03/2010

 O R D E R
          M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

           ------------------------------------------
            CRL.M.C.NO.123 OF 2010
           ------------------------------------------
             Dated 23rd March 2010


                         O R D E R
            Petitioner                is       the    de   facto

complainant    and         first            respondent      the

accused in C.C.1055/2009 on the file of

Judicial First Class Magistrate-V,

Kozhikode. First respondent was granted

bail. While on bail, petitioner filed

C.M.P.3211/2009 for cancellation of the

bail contending that on 12/6/2009 and

15/6/2009 first respondent threatened her

over phone. It is alleged that he is

trying to influence the investigation by

intimidating the witnesses. First

respondent filed an objection before the

learned Magistrate denying the allegation.

By Annexure-D order learned Magistrate

Crmc 123/10
2

dismissed the petition. This petition is filed

under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure

contending that learned Magistrate dismissed

the petition for the sole reason that

investigation was completed and final report

was submitted without considering the question

whether bail is liable to be cancelled due to

threat made by first respondent effecting

investigation and trial.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and first respondent were heard.

3. When petitioner asserts that she was

threatened by first respondent on 12/6/2009 and

15/6/2009, first respondent denied the case.

Final report has already been submitted and

offences taken cognizance. Question now is

whether by continuing on bail first respondent

would interfere with a fair trial. On the facts

Crmc 123/10
3

and circumstances of the case, I find no reason

to interfere with Annexure-D order. First

respondent is directed not the threaten or make

attempt to influence any of the witnesses. If

there is any attempt to threaten or influence

any witness hereafter, petitioner is at liberty

to approach the Magistrate to cancel the bail.

Petition is disposed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.

uj.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *