Allowed

Saheer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2013Bail Appl./1495/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala admitted a bail application filed by an accused alleged to have committed offences under Sections 366 and 376 of IPC. Noting that investigation was partially complete and there was no apprehension of absconding, the Court allowed bail on strict conditions including reporting to the IO and prohibiting interference with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on execution of bond with two solvent sureties and compliance with reporting and conduct conditions.

Saheer Vs State of Kerala — 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 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/24TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1495 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 118/2003 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SAHEER, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED, MANNENGAL HOUSE, VELLIYANJERI MELATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNKALAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ROY THOMAS

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

¶17

B.A. No. 1495 of 2013

¶18

¶19

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2013.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 118 of 2013 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of I.P.C.

¶22

The allegation against the petitioner is that on 19.1.2013 at about 3.30 p.m. he had forcibly taken the victim, who was 23 years of age and a married lady, to a lonely place in a car and ravished her.

¶23

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is pointed out that, at any rate, he has been in custody from 25.1.2013 and his continued custody is unnecessary.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor very vehemently opposed the petition. It is pointed out that the allegations

¶25

against the petitioner are serious in nature and investigation is not yet complete.

¶26

B.A.1495/2013.

¶27

¶28

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records, the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent does not appear to be correct. There are materials as against the petitioner to show his involvement in the incident. However, he has been in custody from 25.1.2013 and a good portion of the investigation must have been completed by now. Since there is no apprehension 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.

¶29

Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶30

i) 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.

¶31

B.A.1495/2013.

¶32

¶33

ii) The learned Magistrate 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.

¶34

iii) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Thursday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. till final report is laid.

¶35

iv) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶36

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

¶37

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶38

sb.

Saheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saheer 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

Reena Joseph Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Nazila Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Mukundan Vs State of Kerala

Rafeek Vs State of Kerala

Chakochan @ Chacko Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Vs State of Kerala