Allowed

C.K. Abdul Rahiman Sha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Sept 2014Bail Appl./5631/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to five accused persons involved in a sexual offence case, relying on a previous bail order granted to fellow accused in the same crime, while addressing the prosecution's need for custody for a potency test.

What did the court decide?

This bail petition is allowed on the same conditions as the earlier order granting bail to co-accused, with a bond of Rs. 50,000 plus sureties and specific reporting and conduct restrictions.

C.K. Abdul Rahiman Sha Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/26TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5631 of 2014 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 186/2014 OF KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION,KANNUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2 TO 5 AND 8:

¶8

1. C.K. ABDUL RAHIMAN SHA, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT HUVVAL KHADER, SILSILATHUL KHADIRIYA, ASTHANA, VENGAD.

¶9

2. ABDUL ASEES, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT PURAKKALAM, NEAR LIONS CLUB,

¶10

KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR.

¶11

3. SATHAR, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN SHA,AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4/5, VTH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE.

¶12

4. MURATH KHADIRI, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN SHA,AGED 34 YEARS,

¶13

RESIDING AT NO.4/5, VTH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE.

¶14

5. HASSAINAR KHADIRI, S/O.ABDUL KHADER,AGED 32 YEARS,

¶15

RESIDING AT NO.4/5, VTH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS

¶17

RESPONDENT/STATE :

¶18

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶19

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sts

¶22

V.K.MOHANAN, J

¶23

===========================

¶24

B.A No.5631 of 2014

¶25

============================

¶26

Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2014

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petitioners are accused nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 in Crime No. 186/2014 of Kuthuparamba Police Station and as they are apprehending arrest in the above crime, they preffered this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶29

The prosecution allegation is that 1^st accused in the above crime is the husband of the victim who is the daughter of the de facto complainant and he compelled his wife, the victim, to have sexual intercourse with the other accused. So, according to the prosecution, the accused in the above case have committed the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506(i) and 325 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners after inviting my attention to Annexure 3 order submitted that another learned Judge of this Court has already granted anticipatory bail to accused numbers 1, 6 and 7 in the very same crime and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to get the same

¶32

B.A No.5631 of 2014

¶33

¶34

treatment. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the crime was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the de facto complainant in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba and there is no explanation for the delay.

¶35

On the other hand, opposing the bail application, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the custody of the petitioners are necessary for conducing potency test.

¶36

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. As the allegation against the petitioners as well as accused numbers 6 and 7 are similar in nature , I find no reason to take a different view from Annexure 3 order and to deny bail to the petitioners. So, according to me, following Annexure 3 order, on same conditions, this petition can be allowed in favour of the petitioners.

¶37

In the result, this petition is allowed and accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners in Crime No.186/2014 of Kuthuparamba Police Station, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for like amount, to the satisfaction of the

¶38

B.A No.5631 of 2014

¶39

¶40

Investigating Officer in the above crime and on the following other

¶41

conditions:

¶42

i) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer between 10:30 a.m and 11:30 a.m on every Saturday for three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶43

ii) Petitioners shall not contact or attempt to communicate with the victim or her relatives.

¶44

iii) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses.

¶45

iv) This order is not applicable if the petitioners choose to surrender before the Magistrate concerned and in such case the learned Magistrate may take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶48

vdv //True Copy//

¶49

P.A to Judge

C.K. Abdul Rahiman Sha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K. Abdul Rahiman Sha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anoop Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Zakariya P. @ Jakki Vs State of Kerala

Sijo Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Kumar Vs the S.I of Police

Vinu Vs State of Kerala

Vinod @ Kallappan Vs the State of Kerala