Dismissed

Andul Razack Muhammed K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Mar 2010Bail Appl./280/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court refused relief to the first accused in a rape case alleging rape of a minor girl by multiple accused, holding the matters serious and requiring custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Bail Application dismissed; anticipatory bail refused as the court held it was not a fit case and custodial interrogation was required.

Andul Razack Muhammed K. Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 280 of 2010

¶6

CRIME NO.479 OF 2009 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

ABDUL RAZAK MUHAMMED .K, S/O.MUHAMMED.K., KATTUR HOUSE, TOWN HALL ROAD, KASARAGODE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGODE POLICE STATION, KASARAGODE PO, KASARAGODE DISTRICT.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶18

B.A. NO. 280 OF 2010

¶19

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2010

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.479 of 2009 of Kasaragod Police Station.

¶22

The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 376, 366A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The prosecution case is that one Fathimath Zuhara, an orphan girl aged 15 years, was subjected to rape by fifteen persons at Kasaragod, Mangalore and nearby places. Fifteen crimes were registered. In several cases, the accused persons approached this court for anticipatory bail. All the applications for anticipatory bail were dismissed. The petitioner is the first accused in one such crime. Fathimath Zuhara was staying in a Yathimkhana. On attaining puberty, she could not stay in the Yathimkhana and therefore she had to go out. Under the pretext of protecting her, two ladies brought her and she was later presented to several persons for committing rape.

¶24

B.A. NO. 280 OF 2010

¶25

:: 2 ::

¶26

The allegations levelled against the petitioner are very serious in nature. In a case of this nature, the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be alien to such persons who are allegedly involved in the offence. No discretionary relief can be granted to a person against whom such offences are alleged. After dismissal of the applications for anticipatory bail, many of the accused persons were arrested and most of them were released on bail.

¶27

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case.

¶28

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

¶29

ahz/

¶30

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

Andul Razack Muhammed K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andul Razack Muhammed K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Elias and Others Vs State of Kerala

Shan Devassia Vs the State of Kerala

Faizal and Others Vs State of Kerala