Allowed

Muneer v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Mar 2013Bail Appl./1256/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition by an accused facing charges under IPC 363, 366A and POCSO for kidnapping and child abduction, the court allowed bail subject to specific conditions including a personal bond, appearance obligations, and restrictions on leaving the state or tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with two solvent sureties; required to appear weekly; prohibited from leaving Kerala or tampering with evidence.

Muneer Vs the State of Kerala — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/14TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1256 of 2013 (A)

¶6

[CRIME NO. 20/2013 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DISTRICT]

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

MUNEER, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. MAJEED, KARAKUNDU HOUSE, PRASHANTHI ROAD, PADANNEKAD, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.R.REKESH.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ROY THOMAS.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Prv.

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 1256 OF 2013

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 05^th day of March, 2013

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.20 of 2013 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366A of IPC and Sections 4 and 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

¶20

The incident is alleged to have been occurred on 04.01.2013 at 17.00 PM. The allegation is that the victim has gone along with her friend and was found missing. The defacto complainant suspects the involvement of the petitioner and made a complaint.

¶21

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. The petitioner says that he has been in custody from 16.01.2013, and his continued custody is unnecessary.

¶22

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the investigation is still going on.

¶23

B.A.No.1256/2013

¶24

-2-

¶25

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent cannot be accepted. Materials show otherwise. However, he has been in custody from 16.01.2013 onwards. A good part of the investigation must have been completed by now. Since no apprehension is expressed by the Investigating Agency that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to abscond, his continued custody appears to be unnecessary.

¶26

The petition is allowed as follows:

¶27

i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the JFCM Court concerned.

¶28

ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 am and 10 am until further orders.

¶29

iii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax

¶30

B.A.No.1256/2013

¶31

-3-

¶32

receipts before granting bail.

¶33

vi) The petitioner shall produce his original passport before the learned Magistrate. If he is not having any valid passport, he should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶34

v) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.

¶35

vi) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala. vii) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law.

¶36

P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶37

¶38

The word “JFCM Court concerned” occurring in line 5 of the 1^st condition, the word “learned Magistrate” occurring in line 1 of the 3^rd condition and in line 2 of the 4^th condition and the word “Magistrate” occurring in line 4 of the 4^th condition are corrected and substituted as “Court concerned”, vide order dated 07.3.2013 in Crl.M.A.No. 2206/2013 in B.A. No.1256/2013.

¶39

Sd/Registrar (Judicial)

Muneer v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muneer v. the 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

Jijan Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

V.Sheela Vs State of Kerala

Ragesh M.V. Vs the State of Kerala

Dilip Singh Vs State of Kerala

A. Mohan Das Vs State of Kerala

Muthuvana Jacob @ Kochu Vs State of Kerala