Allowed

Abdul Rauf.K.M.G v. the Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Kerala HC6 Sept 2016Bail Appl./1613/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the court observed suspicious elements in the rape complaint where the accused and victim had lived as husband and wife. Finding that custodial interrogation was not necessary at this stage and that detention would be unjust, the court allowed bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is released on bail on executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 50,000/- each and complying with reporting and residence conditions.

Abdul Rauf.K.M.G Vs the Union Territory of Lakshadweep — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/15TH BHADRA, 1938 Bail Appl..No. 1613 of 2016 ()

¶5

CRIME NO.4/2016 OF MINICOPY POLICE STATION, LAKSHADWEEP

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶7

ABDUL RAUF.K.M.G

¶8

S/O.ISMAIL, KISMATHIGE HOUSE, SOUTH BANDARAM, MINICOY ISLANDS, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.

¶12

2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MINICOY POLICE STATION, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN 682559.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

P.UBAID, J.

¶17

- - - - B.A.No. 1613 of 2016

¶18

- - - - Dated this the 06^th day of September, 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner herein seeks pre-arrest bail under

¶21

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No. 4 of 2016 of the Minicoy Police Station, Lakshadweep, registered under Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The victim of offence in this case is a lady aged 42 years having three children. Her complaint is that the petitioner herein developed intimacy with her, promised that he would look after her and her children, and he also promised that he would marry her. Thus, they maintained sexual relationship for years, and even lived as man and wife. When they fell apart, the lady brought a complaint alleging rape. Thus, things are to a great extent suspicious.

¶23

It is really doubtful whether this is in fact a case of rape.

¶24

B.A.No. 1613 of 2016

¶25

-2-

¶26

This application for pre-arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is at the preliminary stage, that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶27

On a reading of the materials, I find that the petitioner herein and the victim had unholy union for years, and the only question for consideration is whether their sexual contacts on many occasions were in any manner vitiated. Let these aspects be probed into during trial. The concern of the court at this stage is whether there is prima facie materials to substantiate the allegation of rape. When things are to a great extent suspicious, it would be inappropriate and unjust to detain the petitioner in custody. It is really unacceptable that the lady having three children believed that the petitioner herein, younger to her by 10

¶28

B.A.No. 1613 of 2016

¶29

-3-

¶30

years, would marry her.

¶31

In the result, this petition for pre-arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 50,000/-₹ (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 4 of 2016 of the Minicoy Police Station, Lakshadweep. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶32

a) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Mondays for a period of two months.

¶33

b) The petitioner shall not leave the limits of Minicoy Police Station for a period of two months.

¶34

c) The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or he shall not have any contact with the

¶35

B.A.No. 1613 of 2016

¶36

-4-

¶37

material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶38

d) The petitioner shall not enter the

¶39

revenue village where the house of the victim of

offence is situated.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

B.A.No. 1613 of 2016

-5-

P.UBAID, J.

B.A.No. 1613 of 2016

- - - - Dated this the 09^th day of June, 2016

¶52

ORDER

¶53

It is submitted by the learned counsel that the complainant herein has filed an application against the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Andrott, for some reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kavarathy Administration will ascertain the facts and report about such proceeding. On a preliminary hearing, I find something suspicious in this case. There is reason to believe that the petitioner herein and the complainant had lived for years as man and wife, and now, it is alleged that the lady has sought maintenance for the children born in this relationship. In such a situation, the allegation of rape must definitely be suspicious.

¶54

B.A.No. 1613 of 2016

¶55

-6-

¶56

As an interim measure, arrest of the petitioner as part

¶57

of investigation will stand deferred until further orders.

¶58

Post after two weeks.

¶59

P.UBAID

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

Abdul Rauf.K.M.G v. the Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rauf.K.M.G v. the Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivadasan Vs State of Kerala

Ansar Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Feni Azees Vs Station House Officer

Amla Johnson Vs State of Kerala

Sebin Philip Vs State of Kerala