Partly allowed

Nabeesa @ Naseema v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC8 Mar 2013Bail Appl./1237/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order disposing of four bail applications regarding offering a minor for prostitution. Applications 1237, 1296, and 1323 were allowed with bonds and conditions; application 1414 was dismissed with liberty to approach another court.

What did the court decide?

B.A. 1414 dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate court. B.A. 1237, 1296, 1323 allowed on bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties and reporting conditions.

Nabeesa @ Naseema Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/17TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1237 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 507/2012 OF ELATHUR POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 :

¶8

-----------------------------------------

¶9

NABEESA @ NASEEMA, AGED 53 YEARS D/O. KASIMKUNJU, SHINU MANZIL HOUSE, NAGARIKUNNU A.K.G. NAGAR, PAZHAKUTTI, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN

¶11

SRI.M.VIVEK SRI.M.R.MADHU

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT :

¶13

--------------------------------------------------------------

¶14

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ELATHUR POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶15

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

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-03-2013, ALONG WITH BA. 1296/2013, AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶20

- - - - B.A. Nos. 1237, 1296, 1323 &

¶21

1414 of 2013

¶22

- - - - Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2013.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

As common issue arises for consideration in these bail applications, they are being disposed of by a common order. The issue involved in all these cases is regarding the offering of a minor girl by her own mother for prostitution and others aiding the mother in doing so.

¶25

The petitioner in B.A. 1323 of 2013 and 1414 of 2013 is the mother of the victim and the applicant in the other two applications are persons who harboured the girl while she was offered for prostitution by her mother. The petitioner in B.A. 1296 of 2013 is alleged to have taken the girl from one place to another, while the petitioner in B.A. 1237 of 2013 is alleged to have harboured the victim for eight days.

¶26

The petitioners would say that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated with ulterior

¶27

B.A.1237/2013 & con.cases.

¶28

¶29

motive. At any rate, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner in B.A.1237 of 2013 has been in custody from 30.1.2013, the petitioner in B.A 1296 of 2013 has been in custody from 19.1.2013, the petitioner in B.A.1323 of 2013 has been in custody from 24.10.2012 and in B.A. 1414 of 2012 she has been in custody from 20.12.2012 onwards.

¶30

The petitioners would say that their continued custody is unnecessary and they may be released on bail.

¶31

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed B.A. 1414 of 2013 on the ground that charge has been laid and cognizance of the offence has been taken and it is only appropriate that the petitioner in that case be directed to approach the appropriate court for bail. B.A. 1237 of 2013 is strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the petitioner therein is involved in another crime and she does not deserve any sympathy.

¶32

B.A.1237/2013 & con.cases.

¶33

¶34

If the allegations are true, the matter is indeed serious and very disturbing. The issue concerned is the offering of the minor daughter for prostitution by none other than her mother with the aid of other accused. However, the petitioners have been in custody for a long period. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in B.A. 1237 of 2013 that even though serious allegations are raised against the petitioner therein, her custodial interrogation has not been sought for.

¶35

Considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioners and the period of custody undergone by them, it is felt that these applications can be disposed of.

¶36

In the result, B.A. 1414 of 2013 is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner therein to approach the appropriate court for bail.

¶37

The other applications, i.e., B.A. Nos.1237 of 2013, 1296 of 2013 and 1323 of 2013, are allowed as follows:

¶38

B.A.1237/2013 & con.cases.

¶39

¶40

i) Petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶41

ii) The court concerned may ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts that are sought to be produced at the time of executing the bond.

¶42

iii) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer concerned on every Friday between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. till final report is laid.

¶43

iv) Petitioners shall surrender their passports before the court concerned, and if they are not having passports, affidavits to that effect shall be filed before the court concerned.

¶44

v) Petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the court concerned.

¶45

B.A.1237/2013 & con.cases.

¶46

¶47

vi) Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶48

vii) If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioners shall stand cancelled, and the court concerned may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶49

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶50

sb.

Nabeesa @ Naseema v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nabeesa @ Naseema v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Reghunathan Nair Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Ganeshkumr @ Omanakuttan Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala