Dismissed

Mrs.Ashalatha.Y.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Sept 2014Bail Appl./5847/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a bail application filed by the 5th accused, a practicing lawyer, who sought anticipatory relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding allegations of child trafficking. The Court refused bail, citing the gravity of the allegations and the necessity of investigation to trace the children.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed with no merit found.

Mrs.Ashalatha.Y.K Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/27TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5847 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 598/2014 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION , KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.5:

¶8

MRS.ASHALATHA.Y.K, AGED 49,

¶9

W/O.LATE B.YOGESH KAMATH, RESIDING AT HAIR HARAKRUPA MALARAYA TEMPLE ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR, URVA MANGALORE, KARNATAKA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)

¶11

SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH

¶12

SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.K. MOHANAN, J.

¶18

Bail Application No. 5847 of 2014

¶19

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2014

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is the 5^th accused in Crime No. 598 of 2014 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod District for offences punishable under Sections 317, 370, 372 and 373 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and as he apprehends arrest, he approached this Court by filing the above petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that the first accused P.M.Sulaiman had sold his two minor children to the 2^nd accused one Mr. Basheer and also to the 3^rd accused one Rasheed. It is the further case of the prosecution that those children were sold to the petitioner who is an Advocate practicing at Mangalore and thus, according to the prosecution, the accused in the above crime

¶23

Bail Application No. 5847 of 2014 2

¶24

including the petitioner who is the 5^th accused has committed the aforesaid offences.

¶25

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

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon a

¶27

decision of this Court in Prema v. State of Kerala and Another -

¶28

2013 (3) KHC 758 vehemently argued that even if the allegations are taken as true, no offence would be attracted against the petitioner who is a practicing lawyer. The learned counsel has pointed out that the petitioner who has been enrolled as an Advocate on 2-3-1990 is a practicing lawyer and she is implicated in the above crime due to extraneous reasons. It is further submitted that the other accused in the very same crime has been granted regular bail. So, considering the fact that the petitioner is a

¶29

Bail Application No. 5847 of 2014 3

¶30

practicing Advocate and also considering the fact that she is a widow, this petition may be allowed and in such event she is ready to abide whatever conditions this Court please to impose on her.

¶31

However, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the relief sought for in this application and submitted that the petitioner has played a prominent role in the sale of children of which the first petitioner in the above crime is their father. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, investigation in the above crime is in progress and the children involved in this case is

¶32

to be traced out for which purpose, the custody of the petitioner is warranted.

¶33

Having regard to the facts involved in this case and considering the seriousness of the allegation, I am of the view that

¶34

this Court will not be justified in granting anticipatory bail to the

¶35

¶36

Bail Application No. 5847 of 2014

¶37

petitioner.

¶38

In the result, I fine no merit in this application and

¶39

accordingly the same stands dismissed.

¶40

Dated this the 18^th day of September, 2014.

¶41

Sd/-V.K. MOHANAN, Judge.

¶42

Ani/

¶43

/true copy/

¶44

P.S. To Judge

Mrs.Ashalatha.Y.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Ashalatha.Y.K 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.K. Abdul Rahiman Sha Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Kumar Vs the S.I of Police

Vinu Vs State of Kerala

Suprabashg C.G Vs State of Kerala

Sameer Vs State of Kerala

Alosious C Antony @ Kuriachan Vs State of Kerala