Allowed

Rafeek v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2013Bail Appl./1601/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application raised by a second accused alleged to have knowingly facilitated the rape of a minor girl. The court held that since there was no apprehension of the accused absconding, continued custody was unnecessary, subject to specific reporting and non-tampering conditions.

What did the court decide?

petitioner released on bail on bond for Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, subject to reporting on Fridays and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Rafeek Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | 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. 1601 of 2013 (A)

¶6

[CRIME NO. 2259/2012 OF VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD DISTRICT]

¶7

APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

RAFEEK, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.RASHEED, MELIDUKKUKAVU, MOOLAMKODE P.O, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON VARIKKAPPALLIL.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶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

Prv.

¶15

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

¶17

B.A. No. 1601 of 2013

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No. 2259

¶22

of 2012 of Vadakkencherry Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 366A and 376 of I.P.C.

¶23

The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with two others on 18.12.2012 at about 11.30 a.m. had kidnapped or abducted a minor girl and facilitated the commission of rape by the first accused.

¶24

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. At any rate, he would point out that he has not been attributed with the act of having committed rape and he is alleged to have only helped the first accused to commit the offence. According to him, he has been in custody from 24.12.2012 and his continued custody is unnecessary.

¶25

B.A.1601/2013.

¶26

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor very vehemently opposed the petition. It is pointed out by him that by no stretch of imagination the act of the petitioner can be viewed lightly. He had aided the other accused in forcing the girl into a vehicle and taking her to a lonely place where the first accused ravished the victim. It is pointed out that investigation is still going on.

¶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 cannot be countenanced. He is one of the persons who had forced the minor victim into the autorickshaw and helped the first accused to satiate his lust. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the acts cannot be viewed lightly and the acts committed by the petitioner are grave and serious. However, the petitioner has been in custody from 24.12.2012 and a good portion of the investigation must have been completed by now. Since

¶29

B.A.1601/2013. 3

¶30

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.

¶31

Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶32

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.

¶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 Friday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. till final report is laid.

¶35

B.A.1601/2013.

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶40

sb.

Rafeek v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafeek 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

Saheer Vs State of Kerala

Chakochan @ Chacko Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Vs State of Kerala