Allowed

Shamseera v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Oct 2013Bail Appl./6224/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted bail to two accused persons charged under multiple child protection and marital laws. The court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction due to lack of overt acts attributed to them, conditioning release on surrender, sureties, reporting, and non-tampering.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on conditions: surrender by 18.10.2013, execution of bond with sureties, reporting every Wednesday, and no tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Shamseera Vs State of Kerala — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/16TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6224 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 258/2013 OF CHEMMANGAD POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DIST.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. SHAMSEERA, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O.SAKEER, VALIYAGAM PARAMBA, PANDARATHOP PADANNA KUNGUNGAL, NAGARAM AMSOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK.

¶9

2. FATHIMA NASLEEN, AGED 25 YEARS, W/O.ABU SHAHAN, FARDHEENAS, KUNDUNGAL, CALICUT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN.

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C. RASHEED.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶17

--------------------------------------Bail Application No.6224 OF 2013

¶18

Dated this the 8^th day of October, 2013.

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioners are the 4^th and 6^th accused in Crime No.258/2013 of Chemmangad Police Station who are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, Section 23 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, Sections 7, 8 and 16 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 9, 10, 11 and 15 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

¶21

The allegation which led to the registration to the crime is that the victim who was aged only 17 years was forced to marry the 1^st accused and thereby the offences have been committed and the other accused persons is alleged to have aided the 1^st accused in marrying the victim and they have been harassing and treating her cruelly.

¶22

The petitioners would say that they had nothing to do

¶23

B.A. No.6224/2013

¶24

¶25

with the incident and they have been unnecessarily implicated in the matter. Even going by the allegations, it is only a case of mental harassment and there is no specific overt act alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. It is pointed out that they have been falsely implicated. They therefore seek pre arrest bail.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage and the allegations against the petitioners and others are serious and grave in nature.

¶27

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and also after having perused the records, the claim of the petitioners that they are totally innocent cannot be accepted. The fact remains that there is no overt act attributed to the petitioners and they have only mentally tortured the victim. No specific instances of mental harassment is seen mentioned in the available records.

¶28

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances especially the allegations against the petitioners, it is felt that

¶29

B.A. No.6224/2013

¶30

¶31

this is a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶32

i) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 18.10.2013 who, after interrogation, shall produce them before the Court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioners, shall release them on bail on their executing bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Court concerned, on

¶37

B.A. No.6224/2013

¶38

¶39

being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to it in law.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶42

smp

¶43

// True Copy //

¶44

P.A. to Judge.

Shamseera v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamseera 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anilkumar (Kochani) Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Muneer Vs State of Kerala

Prasanna.S Vs State of Kerala

Motan Vs State of Kerala

Mottan Vs State of Kerala