The court rejected the bail application of the second accused, finding he was not innocent as he facilitated the rape of a minor girl in his house by a first accused whom he knew.
Bail application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/23RD JYAISHTA, 1936
Bail Appl..No. 4169 of 2014 ()
CRIME NO. 225/2014 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
PETITIONER/A2:
HASSAN KANNU, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED ABDUL KHADER, ALUNINNAVILA, PULLOORKONAM, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.
B.A.No.4169 of 2014
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2014
ORDER
Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.225 of 2014 of
Vizhinjam Police Station. The de facto complainant is the mother of a girl aged 16 years. He made acquaintance with the girl over his mobile phone. On 13.2.2014 he took her to the house of the petitioner and committed rape on her. According to the prosecution it was the petitioner who made all arrangements for the commission of the offence and he has committed the offence under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act read with Section 34 IPC. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is innocent. The only reasons for his being made an accused are that he happened to be a friend of the first accused and that the incident happened in his house.
petitioner. I have perused the case diary. The statement of the victim girl shows that the petitioner was present in the house
B.A.No.4169 of 2014 2
when the incident happened during day time. It was he who facilitated commission of the offence by the first accused. It cannot be said that he was unaware of the intention of the first accused. The victim girl was a minor. Prima facie he had the knowledge that the first accused would commit the offence. He cannot be said to be innocent. I am not inclined to think that
this is a fit case to invoke jurisdiction of this court under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
In the result this Bail Application is dismissed.
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE
cms
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given his alleged knowledge of the offence committed in his house by the first accused.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
HASSAN KANNU
STATE OF KERALA
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
