Allowed

Naisam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2013Bail Appl./2086/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted bail to three accused persons charged with offences under Section 366A IPC and Section 9(g) of the POCSO Act. Despite the serious nature of the charges, the court found continued custody unnecessary as investigation was largely complete and there was no apprehension of absconding. Bail was granted subject to seven conditions including surrendering passports and regula

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on executing bond Rs. 25,000 each with two solvent sureties, subject to seven conditions including passport surrender and reporting.

Naisam 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

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2013/1ST CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2086 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 50/2013 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3:

¶8

1. NAISAM,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MAMMAD KOYA, NAISAM MANZIL HOUSE, PANIKKAMADOM PARAMBA,

¶9

MATHOTTAM, P O ARAKKINAR.

¶10

2. ALI AKBAR @ AKKU,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.ASHRAF BAITHUL AKBAR HOUSE, OTHAYAMANGALAM PARAMBA, AREEKKAD, NALLALAM P O.

¶11

3. YUSUF SULAIMAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.KARIM, K.K.HOUSE, MARAKAN KADAVU PARAMBA, MUGADAR, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRA KRISHNAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS:STATE:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031(CRIME NO 50/2013 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT).

¶15

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.RASHEED

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶19

--------------------------------------Bail Application No.2086 OF 2013

¶20

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2013.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.50/2013 of Nadakkavu Police Station who are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 366A and 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9(g) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.

¶23

The allegation against the accused is that on 17.01.2013, the 1^st accused, promising to drop the victim near her house, took her in a motor bike and then took her to a place where he had arranged the other accused to wait with an Innova car. The allegation is that the girl was transported into that car and the 1^st accused ravished her. It is also alleged that the other accused also misbehaved with her.

¶24

The petitioners would say that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the matter. At any rate,

¶25

B.A. No.2086/2013

¶26

¶27

according to them, they have been in custody from 20.01.2013

¶28

and their continued custody is unnecessary.

¶29

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the offences attributed to the petitioners are of serious nature and the investigation is going on.

¶30

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the Case Diary, the claim of the petitioners that they are innocent may not be quite acceptable as of now. A deeper probe into the veracity of the allegations is not warranted at this point of time. However, it is seen in the Case Diary that a good part of the investigation has been completed. No apprehension is expressed by the investigating officer that if released on bail, the petitioners are likely to abscond.

¶31

Considering the above facts, it is felt that the continued custody of the petitioners is unnecessary. Therefore, the application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶32

i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the

¶33

B.A. No.2086/2013

¶34

¶35

like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

iv) The petitioners shall surrender their passports 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.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

B.A. No.2086/2013

¶43

¶44

said fact, may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶45

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶46

smp

Naisam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naisam 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

Rajaneesh Vs State of Kerala

Salim B.A. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

K.V. Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar.P Vs State of Kerala

K.Sudhana Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

B.A. Mohammed Farooque Vs State of Kerala