Dismissed

Shaiju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2012Bail Appl./3284/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala denied anticipatory bail to an accused charged with kidnapping and sexual intercourse under IPC 366 and 376. The court directed voluntary surrender to the police, with subsequent bail application considered via the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Denial of anticipatory bail; direction to surrender to Investigating Officer for interrogation, followed by Magistrate's hearing on bail.

Shaiju Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/24TH JYAISHTA 1934 Bail Appl..No. 3284 of 2012 (A)

¶5

CRIME NO.39/2012 OF NOORANAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S):

¶7

SHAIJU

¶8

S/O SALIM, NEDUMBRATHU VILAYIL, MEKKUMMURI THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT

¶10

RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, NOORANAD POLICE STATION REPRESNETED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.JASMINE V.H.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

SU/-

¶16

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶17

B.A. No: 3284 of 2012

¶18

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2012

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No:39/2012 of Nooranad Police Station, Alappuzha. The offences alleged are under sections 366(A), 420 and 376 of IPC and section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act. The correct provision should be section 366 and not 366(A). Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶21

The girl, at the relevant time, was just above 16 years. She was kidnapped from the lawful guardianship of her father. She was taken to other places, where from, the accused was stated to have had sexual intercourse. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was always ready to marry the girl, but only because she did not attain 18 years, she was not married. The prosecution contends that it is only a false promise in order to escape from the liability. The learned counsel further

¶22

B.A. No: 3284/2012

¶23

-2-

¶24

submits that there was a mediation talk also and some decision was taken by the Jamayath Committee.

¶25

I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the

¶26

accused.

¶27

If the petitioner surrenders before the

¶28

Police/Investigating Officer, after interrogation the petitioner shall be produced before the Magistrate and if the petitioner applies for bail the learned Magistrate will dispose of the same in accordance with law, but after hearing the learned APP as well and also after perusal of the case diary, if so required and also after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. If the Investigating Officer files application for police custody for further interrogation that shall also be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law.

¶29

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶30

jjj

Shaiju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaiju 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gavaskar Vs State of Kerala

Jinesh Vs State of Kerala

M.R.Kumaran Vs C.I. of Police, Vigilance

Shereef.a.G. Vs the Station House Officer

Sasi Vs State of Kerala

Surendran Vs the State of Kerala