Dismissed

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

Kerala HC13 Mar 2013Bail Appl./1504/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered a bail application by an accused charged with sexual assault under IPC 354 and POCSO Act against a minor. The Court rejected the claim of ulterior motive, noting the serious nature of the charges and the protective purpose of the POCSO Act, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Bail application dismissed.

Shahul Hammeed K. Vs the Sub Inspector of… — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/22ND PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1504 of 2013 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 59/2013 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

SHAHUL HAMEED K., AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMED, SUMAYYA MANZIL, IRIKKOOR, CHEDICHERY DESOM, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.ROY THOMAS.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 1504 OF 2013

¶17

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

¶18

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2013

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.59 of 2013 of Mayyil Police Station, Kannur who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that he and other accused persons who are teachers of Madrassa School had committed sexual assault on a minor child aged 10 years who is a student of the Madrassa, in the Month of January 2013 and on different days and thereby committed offences.

¶22

The petitioner would say that the allegations are totally false and made with ulterior motive. There are more than 125 students in the Madrassa of which there are two factions and they were on rival terms. In order to settle the

¶23

B.A.No.1504/2013

¶24

-2-

¶25

scores, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is also pointed out that the parents of the victim have sworn to an affidavit which is produced before this Court which would indicate that the victim has not suffered any such trauma as alleged. The petitioner therefore seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition

¶27

and pointed out that the offences are of serious and grave in nature. Considering the object and purpose of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, granting of anticipatory bail is not proper.

¶28

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. It is true that the parents of the child have filed an affidavit before this Court which shows that their child has not been abused. One must remember that the defacto complainant is the brother of the child.

¶29

B.A.No.1504/2013

¶30

-3-

¶31

Considering the nature of allegations and the purpose of protecting children from sexual abuses, it is felt that the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor is fully justified and it will be doing violation to the Act, if this Court grants anticipatory bail. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail.

¶32

This petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶34

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Renjith Vs State

M.K.Siddique Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Saji P. Daniel Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala