Allowed

Nazila v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2013Bail Appl./1350/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court considered the petition of a pregnant 4th accused in a POCSO and IPC case who claimed innocence and no role in the incident. Despite initial evidence suggesting involvement, the Court found continued custody unnecessary and allowed bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is released on bail by executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including reporting weekly, not leaving Kerala, surrendering passport, and not tampering

Nazila Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/23RD PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1350 of 2013 ()

¶6

----------------------------------------CRIME NO. 65/2013 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED(S):

¶8

NAZILA, AGED 23 YEARS D/O.NAZEYATH, RESIDING AT OLD POLICE STATION BUILDING, THAZHUTHALA CHERRI, ADICHANELLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.SREEVALSAN.V SMT.M.K.SHIMI SRI.D.SREENATH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM -31

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ROY THOMAS

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

tss

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

Bail Application No.1350 OF 2013 --------------------------------------Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2013.

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is 4^th accused in Crime No.65/2013 of Kottiyam Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 366, 366A, 376, 419, 216, 120(b) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

¶19

The petitioner would point out that she is innocent and had no role to play in the incident and she has been arrayed as accused only because she is the wife of the 1^st accused who is alleged to have committed the offences along with others. It is also pointed out that she is carrying and she has been in custody from 12.01.2013 onwards and her continued custody is unnecessary.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the petitioner had an active role to play in the

¶21

B.A. No.1350/2013

¶22

¶23

incident and she was one of the conspirators and pursuant to the acts committed by the accused, a minor child was thrown into sex racket.

¶24

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records, the claim of the petitioner that she is totally innocent cannot be accepted. There are materials to prima facie show that she may be involved in the matter.

¶25

The petitioner has produced Annexure A2 medical certificate to show that she is carrying. The role attributed to the petitioner was that she had conspired along with others to use a minor girl for illegal purpose.

¶26

Considering the nature of the allegations, the role alleged to have been played by the petitioner, the fact that she has been in custody from 12.01.2013 and also the fact that she is carrying and since no apprehension is expressed by the investigating agency that if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to abscond, her continued custody appears to be unnecessary. The application is allowed on the following

¶27

B.A. No.1350/2013

¶28

¶29

conditions:

¶30

i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned.

¶31

ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by her.

¶32

iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders.

¶33

iv) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission of the Magistrate Court concerned.

¶34

v) The petitioner shall surrender her passport before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned and if does not possess a valid passport, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed before the Magistrate court concerned.

¶35

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

¶36

B.A. No.1350/2013

¶37

¶38

vii) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶39

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶40

smp

Nazila v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazila 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

Saji P. Daniel Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hammeed K. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Mayyil Police Station

Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala

Reena Joseph Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

P.v.Mukundan Vs State of Kerala

Vishnulal Vs State of Kerala