Nasleena K.C. v. Central Bureau of Investigation

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. TUESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 9869 OF 2023** **CRIME NO.5/2022 OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,** **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:** NASLEENA K.C., AGED 36 YEARS D/O RASHEED, VIRUPPIL HOUSE, ANAPPARA, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673571 BY ADVS. V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH VISHNU CHANDRAN RALPH RETI JOHN APPU BABU GIRIDHAR KRISHNA KUMAR VISHNUMAYA M.B. GEETHU T.A. APOORVA RAMKUMAR ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) REPRESENTED BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT STANDING COUNSEL, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 SMT.T.V.NEENA, SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2023, THE COURT ON 28.11.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2- **BAIL APPL. NO.9869 of 2023** ## **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.J** **..................................................** ## **BA No.9869 of 2023** **...........................................** **Dated this the 28[th] day of November, 2023** ## **ORDER** This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail. 2. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No. 5/2022 of Central Bureau of Investigation, Thiruvananthapuram, for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the deceased Harris married petitioner/accused No.2 herein, and while they were living as husband and wife, they started a business consultancy firm and became friends with accused No.1. On becoming jealous of Harris's growth in the business, accused No.1 seduced accused No.2 and established an illicit relationship with her and subsequently, the deceased pronounced Talaq of accused No.2 -3- ## **BAIL APPL. NO.9869 of 2023** While being so accused No.1 was arrested by the Abudhabi police in a Narcotic case which he mistook that it was done at the instance of the deceased. On 01.03.2018, an attempt was made to kill the deceased at Kozhikode Medical College premises. Thereafter, accused Nos. 1 to 3 hatched a conspiracy to kill the deceased at the residence of accused No.1 and accused No.1 deployed accused Nos.4 to 9 to Gulf bearing their expenses. On 05.03.2020, the accused killed the deceased Harris and a lady, Dency Antony, who was staying along with the deceased and thereby committed the above offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is innocent in the above matter. The custody of the investigating agency is over. She is ready to cooperate with the investigation. In these circumstances, she may be released on bail. The petitioner has not evaded the process of law. The petitioner had genuine reasons for seeking postponement of appearance before the investigating officer, which the petitioner duly notified to the second respondent. The petitioner was interrogated for a prolonged period of time by the second respondent. The second respondent seized the petitioner's laptop, mobile phone, and passport. The petitioner has not sought her laptop and mobile phone since the petitioner is aware that it is imperative to investigate the offence for which she is being investigated. -4- **BAIL APPL. NO.9869 of 2023** 6. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the bail application and submitted that the case was initially registered as Crime No.422/2022 of Nilambur Police Station on 13/7/2022 under Section 302, 120-B and r/w Section 34 of the IPC against Shaibin Asharaf, and eight others. This case was pertaining to the death of Harris Thathamma Parambil and a lady named Dency Antony found dead in Abudhabi under mysterious circumstances on 5.03.2020. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in WP(Crl.) No.556/2022, the investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation, which re-registered the case as RC 034 2022 S 0005 (RC 5 (S)/2022/CBI/TVPM. The respondent would submit that deceased Harris Thathamma Parambil, S/o.Veerankutty, Kuruppan Thodiyil House, malayamma, Kunnamangalam, Kozhikode, married Nasleema. K.C. (A2), D/o. Rasheed K.C., Kunnamangalam, Kozhikode and while living as husband and wife in Abudhabi, started a business consultancy firm. They became friends with Shaibin Ashraf (A1), and he became jealous of Harri's growth in business activities. Shaibin Ashraf (A1) seduced Nasleema. K.C. (A2) and established an illicit relationship with her. Subsequently, the deceased Harris made an extra-judicial divorce (Talaq) to Nasleema K.C. (A2) as per the Muslim Customary rights. Later, Shabin Ashraf (A1) was arrested by Abudhabi police in a narcotic case, which he misconceived was done at the instance of the deceased Harris. On 01.03.2018, an attempt to kill the deceased Harris was made at Kozhikode Medical College premises on the directions of Shaibin Ashraf(A1). Thereafter, the accused 1 to 3 -5- ## **BAIL APPL. NO.9869 of 2023** hatched a criminal conspiracy at the residence of Shaibin Ashraf (A1) at Nilambur to kill Harris and grab his business and savings. After that, A1 deployed accused 4 to 9 at Gulf, bearing their expenses. On 05.03.2023, the accused killed Harris and a lady, Dency Antony, who was staying along with the deceased in a flat in Abudhabi and made it appear that both had committed. Suicide. Investigation revealed that the deceased Harris married the accused Nasleema K.C., on 10.02.2010 and during the year 2017, while living with her husband in UAE, she was in an illicit relationship with A1 Ahaibin Ashraf, the business partner of Harris Thathamma Parambil. Although Harris warned both of dire consequences, they continued their intimate relationship sturdily. In the meantime, Harris planted a narcotic case against Shaibin (A1) at Abudhabi and was therefore arrested on 03.12.2017 by the Abudhabi police. Later, he was enlarged on bail and reached India on 16.03.2018 via Oman, thereby avoiding all legal hurdles in the UAE. Thereafter, he never returned to UAE. 7. It is also revealed from their statements that even after the Talaq, A2 and A1 continued their relationship and in March 2018, A1 arranged a 'quotation team' to eliminate Haris, but the plan was leaked ultimately, A1 deployed his close aides A4 to A10 to UAE and murdered Haris Thathamma Parambil and his living partner Dency Antony on 05.03.2020. Thereafter, on 29.04.2022, the main accomplice in the crime, Noushad (A4) and his gang voluntarily created a ruckus in front of the Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, and attempted to commit suicide by -6- ## **BAIL APPL. NO.9869 of 2023** pouring petrol on their bodies and publically disclosed to the visual media that A1 is a born criminal and have committed many criminal acts within India and abroad. A4 Noushad also revealed that the murder of Shaibin's business partner Haris and his friend Dency Antony in the Gulf was at the instance of Shaibin Ashraf. He also disclosed that one Shaba Sherif, a traditional Ayurvedic healer hailing from Mysore, treating piles, was also abducted and wrongfully confined in the house of Shaibin Ashraf at Mukkatta Nilambur for extracting the medicinal secret of piles treatment for his financial gain and later he was killed, and the dead body was cut into pieces and disposed in Chaliyar river. Thus, based on the disclosure statements, two cases were registered at Nilambur Police Station vide Crime No.28/2022 pertaining to the murder of Shaba Shereef and Crime No.422/2022 dated 12.7.2022 on the death of Harris and Dency Antony were found dead in Adubhabi under mysterious circumstances on 05.03.2020, against Shaibin Asharaf and others. The investigation further disclosed that after the death of Haris Thathamma Parambil, A2, the petitioner herein travelled to Dubai in October 2020, using her new passport obtained by suppression of facts and wrong information with the passport authorities, and she received the insurance claim of her exhusband Haris from the Zurich International Life Ltd., in UAE. Amounting to Indian Rs.89/57 lakhs. Thereafter, she did not return to India till 07.08.2023. It was thereafter that the investigation team found that the relation of A2 concerning the crime was not true and contradicted the facts of the case, and as such, the arrest of the petitioner was deemed necessary -7- ## **BAIL APPL. NO.9869 of 2023** and accordingly arrested on 21.10.2023. It is also stated that on interrogation, she has confessed about the crime committed by the accused persons at the instance of A1 and also her affair with A1. Under such circumstances, the bail application is strongly opposed on the ground that releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage would affect the investigation. Taking note of the fact that the serious overt acts are levelled against A1 that the petitioner’s phone and laptop have already been seized, her house was raided, she was questioned by the CBI prior to her arrest, that she is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and also to disclose what all she knows about the crime to the investigating officer, that she is a single mother with no criminal antecedents and that on the instruction of A1, A4 to A9 had committed the crime, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on strict conditions: (i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a separate bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction; one of the sureties shall be a parent or close relative of the petitioner. (ii)The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for three months or till the filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. (iii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall he tamper with the evidence or do anything that might adversely affect the trial; -8- ## **BAIL APPL. NO.9869 of 2023** (iv)They shall also cooperate with the investigation and shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer. (v)The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail; (vi)The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction; (vii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional Court. (viii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, within seven days from the date of his release before the Court concerned, and if the release of the passport is required at a later period, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for the same before the court having jurisdiction. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect before the court concerned on the date of execution of the bond or within three days thereafter. (ix)The petitioner shall furnish his present address along with her mobile number to the Court concerned as well as to the investigating officer. (x)In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that it is within the power of police to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners, even when the petitioners are on bail as per the -9- ## **BAIL APPL. NO.9869 of 2023** judgment of the Apex Court in **Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State ( NCT of Delhi) and another** [2021 (1) KHC 663]. Sd/- **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.** **JUDGE** dlk 22 .11.2023 -10- ## **BAIL APPL. NO.9869 of 2023** ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9869/2023** PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM IN CMP 12630/2023 DATED 30.10.2023