Allowed

Sekh Saraffaizudin @ Sarpharaj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jul 2011Bail Appl./5274/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners accused of employing a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act. The High Court allowed bail on the condition that the petitioners had complied with a prior direction to appear before the investigating officer, imposing bond, sureties, and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on bond of 10,000 with sureties, reporting every alternate Monday, and compliance with interrogation.

Sekh Saraffaizudin @ Sarpharaj Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5274 of 2011()

¶6

----------------------------CRIME NO.457/2011 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS:ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

SEKH SARAFARZUDIN @ SARPHRAJ S/O.SAMSUDIN, 220 KA-KHANDAKAR, PARA @ SAKKIMPARA -10, MALAYA DHARIPAL, HOOGLI, WEST BENGAL.

¶10

P.V.JIMMY, S/O.VARGHESE PYNADAN HOUSE, CHIYYARAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY

RESPONDENT:

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

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶18

Bail Appln.No.5274 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2011

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.457 of 2011 of Nedupuzha Police Station, Thrissur District.

¶21

The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 24(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the correct Section which would apply to the facts of the case is Section 26 of the Act.

¶22

The prosecution case is that a juvenile, aged 15 years, was employed in jewellery works and thereby the petitioners have committed the offence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first petitioner belongs to West Bengal and the juvenile was brought to Kerala to train him in the matter of making jewellery by providing an opportunity to see what happens in jewellery works.

¶23

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 07/07/2011, the following order was passed:

¶24

Bail Appln.No.5274/2011

¶25

: 2 :

¶26

“4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the petitioners should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer on 15th July, 2011.

¶27

Post on 20th July, 2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.457 of 2011 of Nedupuzha Police Station till 22.7.2011”.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 07/07/2011 has been complied with by the petitioners.

¶29

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 07/07/2011 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for `10,000/(Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the

¶30

Bail Appln.No.5274/2011

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶34

b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶35

c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

¶36

d) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.

¶37

e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶38

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶39

above.

¶40

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶41

skj

Sekh Saraffaizudin @ Sarpharaj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sekh Saraffaizudin @ Sarpharaj 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

Selvarajan Vs Puravankara Projects Ltd.

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala & Another

Jokuttan @ Scaria A.M. and Othres Vs the Station House Officer, Kelakam Polic

Dittomon Alias Pappachan and Another Vs the State and Another

George Kutty Vs State of Kerala

Solaman Vs State of Kerala