Dismissed

Sajeer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Sept 2014Bail Appl./6735/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a bail application filed under section 439 CrPC by an accused charged with rape and trespass. The Court held the allegations serious and found no change of circumstances to justify bail despite earlier analysis of consent claims and witness intimidation risks.

What did the court decide?

The bail application under section 439 CrPC was dismissed without granting release to the petitioner.

Sajeer Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | 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 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/1ST ASWINA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6735 of 2014 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 328/2014 OF KAMBALAKKAD POLICE STATION ,WAYANAD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SAJEER, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, AAROLI VEEDU, PINANGODE, VENGAPPALLY AMSOM, WAYANADU DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.328/2014 OF KAMBALAKKAD POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶16

B.A.No.6735 of 2014

¶17

Dated this the 23^rd day of September, 2014.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This is the second application filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail, as the petitioner was arrested on 8.8.2014 and continuing in custody.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that at about 11.30 a.m. on 6.8.2014, the accused with criminal intention trespassed into the quarters at Kamballakkad in Kaniyambatta amsom wherein the prosecutrix and her family are living and committed rape on her. Thus, according to the prosecution, the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under sections 450 and 376 of IPC.

¶21

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

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted, after taking me through the information

¶23

B.A.No.6735 of 2014

¶24

¶25

furnished by the de facto complainant, that going by the version of the de facto complainant itself, it can be seen that even if the alleged sexual assault is admitted as true, the same was done with the consent of the de facto complainant and therefore the offence under section 376 of IPC is not attracted. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted that the alleged incident was occurred on 6.8.2014 and on the next day ie., on 7.8.2014, the de facto complainant launched a crime, consequent to which Crime No.328 of 2014 was registered in the Kambalakkad Police Station, for the offence under sections 450 and 376 of IPC. It is also the submission of the learned Public prosecutor that during the course of investigation, sections 363 and 506(1) of IPC are also incorporated in the above crime. It is also the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that, the petitioner is creating nuisance to the de facto complainant and he regularly attempted to contact her over phone before his

¶26

B.A.No.6735 of 2014

¶27

¶28

arrest and if bail is granted to such a person, it will adversely affect the investigation, which is in progress and there is every likelihood to intimidate the witness.

¶29

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case and if the allegations are true, according to me, the same is a serious one and therefore this Court will not be justified in granting bail to the petitioner, though he was arrested on 8.8.2014. Hence, this Court by order dated 27.8.2014 dismissed B.A.No.6338/14, which was the earlier bail application of the petitioner and after the dismissal of the above petition, I find no change of circumstance to take a different view.

¶30

In the result, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶31

Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.

¶32

ami/

¶33

//True copy//

¶34

P.A.to Judge

Sajeer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeer 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

Shyju Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar T.V Vs State of Kerala

Beena Raj @ Beenakumari Vs State of Kerala

Johnson @ Karette Johny Vs State of Kerala

Joy J Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar @ Kuttan Vs the State of Kerala