Allowed

Muhammed Firos v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC16 Sept 2014Bail Appl./6638/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single accused petitioner sought regular bail under CrPC 439 for charges under POCSO. Court allowed bail after 69 days custody, holding investigation completed, imposing conditions including reporting, passport surrender, and non-interference with witnesses or investigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with bond of Rs. 35,000 and two sureties; conditions include fortnightly reporting, passport surrender, and non-interference with witnesses or investigation.

Muhammed Firos Vs Sub Inspector of Police — 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

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/25TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6638 of 2014 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 522/2014 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 :

¶8

-----------------------------------------

¶9

MUHAMMED FIROS, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, MOOPPANTAKATH, P.O.VELLUR, VIA PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT& STATE :

¶12

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERINGOME POLICE STATION, PIN-688 146.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

V.K.MOHANAN, J

¶18

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

¶19

B.A No. 6638 of 2014

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 16^th day of September, 2014

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.522/2014 of Peringome Police Station, Kannur preffered this application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as he was arrested and continuing in custody from 25.06.2014.

¶24

Prosecution allegation is that on 25.06.2014 at 10 a.m the petitioner enticed the de facto complainant, a student of Mathamangalam Higher Secondary School, and taken him to the factory compound at Mathamangalam and committed unnatural sexual assault on him and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 3(a) and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2012.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶27

was arrested as early as on 25.06.2014 and the continued detention of the petitioner is not warranted. It is also the submission of the learned counsel

¶28

¶29

B.A No.6638/2014

¶30

for the petitioner that the petitioner is implicated in the above crime since he had pointed out the bad habit of the de facto complainant, who is aged 16 years.

¶31

The Learned Public Prosecutor, resisting the relief sought for, submitted that the petitioner being a teacher of the Madrassa ought not have involved in such offences and the allegation against the petitioner is very serious.

¶32

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. It is a fact that the petitioner was arrested as early as on 25.06.2014 and since then he is in custody and after the arrest of the petitioner 69 days are already over. The custody of the petitioner if requires for any investigation purpose, the same is over by this time and therefore, according to me, the continued detention of the petitioner is not warranted. Therefore, I am of the view that this petition can be allowed, however, subject to stringent conditions so as to safe guard the interest of prosecution.

¶33

In the result, this petition is allowed granting bail. Accordingly, there will be a direction to release the petitioner on bail, on his executing a bond for `35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties,

¶34

¶35

B.A No.6638/2014

¶36

each for like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court on the following

¶37

other conditions:

¶38

i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer once in a fortnight on Sunday between 10 a.m and 11 a.m.

¶39

ii) Petitioner is directed to surrender his passport before the Investigating Officer at the time of executing the bail bond and if he is not a passport holder, file an affidavit to that effect in the said court. The petitioner is free to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for the release of the passport as and when required and in case of an application is filed in this regard, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the same on merit and pass appropriate orders, guided by the decision rendered by this Court in Ashok Kumar v State of Kerala (2009(2) KLT 712).

¶40

iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence and try to influence any witnesses.

¶41

iv) Petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation.

¶42

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶43

vdv

Muhammed Firos v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Firos v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Clabin @ Vipin Vs State of Kerala

Beefathima Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Anoop Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Zakariya P. @ Jakki Vs State of Kerala

Sijo Mathai Vs State of Kerala