Skip to content


Mohammed Moosa Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantMohammed Moosa
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
.....362, 365, 337, 341, 506(ii), 120b read with section 34 of the ipc, wherein, a1 (father-in-law of defacto complainant dr.v.k. shihabudeen) who is the 1st petitioner in b.a.no.1068/2014 and a2 is the petitioner in b.a.no.412/2014, a3 and a4 are two doctors and a5 is the wife of the defacto complainant, who is the 2nd petitioner in b.a.no.1068/2014. the brief of the prosecution case is that the above said accused had falsely represented to the defacto complainant dr.v.k.shihabudeen that his wife is to be taken for treatment in the psychiatric hospital concerned and that they all had accompanied him and his wife to the said hospital and thereafter, they forcibly administered some psychiatric medicines to him against his will and without consent etc. and said dr.v.k.shihabudeen, who is the.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY, THE4H DAY OF NOVEMBER201413TH KARTHIKA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 412 of 2014 () ------------------------------ (CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS - THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ MOHAMMED MOOSA.M.S. AGED41YEARS S/O. M.M. SULAIMAN, MUNDACKALPUTHUPARAMBIL MUNDAKAYAM.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686513. BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THODUPUZHA IDUKKI DISTRICT(THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.) ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS:

2. DR. V.K.SHIHABUDEEN, AGED40YEARS S/O. LATE V.P.KHAN, RESIDING AT VAYALUNKAL HOUSE BIRLA COLONY, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM-686507.

3. SALIM, AGED49YEARS RESIDING AT XII/487 A, PADINJAREKKARAYIL, KEERIKODU THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., IDUKKI-685585. (R2 & R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER

IN CRL.M.A.NO.1539/14 ON18.14) R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.SOORAJ ELENJIKAL. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SHIBU JOSEPH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0411-2014 A/W. B.A.No. 1068/14, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

================== B.A.Nos.412 & 1068 of 2014 ================== Dated this the 4thOday of November, 2014 R D E R The two petitioners in B.A.No.1068/2014 and the sole petitioner in B.A.No.412/2014 apprehend arrest in connection with a crime, which is said to have been registered by the Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki district, in connection with the allegations mentioned in these applications. The 4th respondent in B.A.No.1068/2014 and the 2nd respondent in B.A.No.419/2014 is one Dr.V.K.Shihabudeen, who is the husband of the 2nd petitioner in B.A.No.1068/2014 and the son-in-law of the 1st petitioner in B.A.No.1068/2014. Two private parties have been impleaded in these bail applications and dispute appears to have arisen out of extreme differences of opinion in the matrimony between the above said spouses. This Court, with the consent of all the parties, had referred for mediation to the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Ernakulam, attached to this Court and there appears that there was no settlement then. It is submitted by Sri.Ashik. K.Mohamed Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioners in these bail B.A.412/14 & CC - :

2. :- applications that the above said Dr.V.K.Shihabudeen (R4 in B.A.No.1068/2014 and R2 in B.A.No.413/2014) is now living together with his wife, who is the 2nd petitioner in B.A.No.1068/2014.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that Crime No.123/2014 of Thodupuzha Police Station has been registered on 17.1.2014 for offences alleged under Sections 307, 362, 365, 337, 341, 506(II), 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC, wherein, A1 (father-in-law of defacto complainant Dr.V.K. Shihabudeen) who is the 1st petitioner in B.A.No.1068/2014 and A2 is the petitioner in B.A.No.412/2014, A3 and A4 are two Doctors and A5 is the wife of the defacto complainant, who is the 2nd petitioner in B.A.No.1068/2014. The brief of the prosecution case is that the above said accused had falsely represented to the defacto complainant Dr.V.K.Shihabudeen that his wife is to be taken for treatment in the psychiatric hospital concerned and that they all had accompanied him and his wife to the said hospital and thereafter, they forcibly administered some psychiatric medicines to him against his will and without consent etc. and said Dr.V.K.Shihabudeen, who is the defacto complainant, is not a B.A.412/14 & CC - :

3. :- psychiatric patient and that this was done illegally and that therefore the above said accused persons have committed the above said offences. Sri.Ashik.K.Mohamed Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Annexure-A produced in B.A.No. 412/2014 is the medical certificate dated 8.10.2012 issued by 4th accused, who is the consultant psychiatrist in the above said hospital, certifying that the said Dr.V.K.Shihabudeen is suffering from bipolar I disorder, who then was violent and showing maniac symptoms and has to be admitted as inpatient for treatment etc, as his relatives are finding it difficult to bring the patient for treatment, etc. The genuineness of this certificate is also seriously disputed by the private respondents in this case. But the fact remains is that as of now, the husband (defacto complainant) and his wife (A5) are now living together, which is not denied by the respondent-State or by the private respondents now appearing through counsel.

3. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the plea of pre-arrest bail in this case, so as to prevent more disharmony and disruption in the matrimonial life of the spouses, who are now living together. Accordingly, it is ordered in the event of the two B.A.412/14 & CC - :

4. :- petitioners B.A.No.1068/2014 and the sole petitioner in B.A.No. 412/2014 being arrested, they shall be released on their separately executing bonds for Rs. 35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the above said crime and subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within 3 days from the execution of the bail bond before the Investigating Officer and if either of them are not holders of passports, then they shall file affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioners require their passports in connection with their travel abroad, then they are free to approach the court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case such an application is filed, the trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, is free to consider the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking necessary guidance from the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in the case Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala, reported in 2009 (2) KLT712 notwithstanding the aforementioned conditions imposed by this Court. (ii) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar or graver in nature. (iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when required. (iv) The petitioners shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever. If the petitioners violate any of the conditions as ordered above, then the bail granted to them are liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, both the applications stand disposed of. Sd/- sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge B.A.412/14 & CC - :

5. :-


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //