Dismissed

Muhammed Riyas v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Feb 2016Bail Appl./327/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by the first accused in an IPC rape and police act offence. Despite some delay in FIR registration, the court declined pre-arrest bail due to the gravity of allegations and modes adopted by the accused, advising surrender for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail rejected; option to surrender for regular bail remains open.

Muhammed Riyas Vs the State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/23RD MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 327 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1422/2015 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED :

¶8

MUHAMMED RIYAS, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.LATE MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT KAYPAKASSERY, CHATHAMANGALAM, MALAYAMMA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU

¶10

SRI.M.RAGHUKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶17

B.A.No.327 of 2016

¶18

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶21

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime

¶22

No.1422/2015 of Kunnamangalam police station. The said crime is registered alleging offence punishable under Section 376 (D), 376 2 (n) and Section 354 (D) (1) (i) read with Section 34 of the IPC and S. 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.

¶23

The prosecution allegation is that the de facto complainant was taken in a car to a rubber estate at Thiruvambadi and rape was committed on her under threat. It is further alleged that even thereafter, on several occasions, the petitioner was raped under threat of death.

¶24

B.A.No.327 of 2016 : 2 :

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the allegations are absolutely false. Highlighting the long delay in registering the crime and in disclosing the factum of rape at the earliest opportunity , it was argued that no sanctity be given to her statement. By referring to Annexure 1 complaint given by the de facto complainant, it was submitted that the she had no such case even on 8.2.2015. It is submitted by the learned counsel that initially the crime was registered only under 354 (D) r/w S 34 of the IPC and under section 120 (o) of the Police Act and that it was later that the de facto complainant had given a new version which led to the adding of serious offences.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the case records would reveal that the de facto complainant was subjected to rape by the petitioner

¶28

B.A.No.327 of 2016 : 3 :

¶29

and the records reveal a sordid case of harassment. It is

¶30

also submitted that the de facto complainant was continuously been stalked and she was taken advantage of by the accused. While she had traveled in the car of the petitioner, the conversation was recorded in stealth, and this was also used to take advantage. The learned prosecutor would also submit that the gold ornaments of the de facto complainant was taken away and the brother of the petitioner had attempted to commit suicide pained by the continuous harassment by the petitioners. It was finally submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the grant of relief may hamper the investigation and this is not a fit case where the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail can be granted.

¶31

I have considered the rival contentions. I have

¶32

also perused the records.

¶33

Though there is some delay in getting the crime registered, it appears from the case records, that the de

¶34

B.A.No.327 of 2016 : 4 :

¶35

facto complainant has ample reasons to offer for the delay. After having anxiously considered the rival submissions and taking note of the modes adopted by the accused to take advantage of the lady, I am not inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶36

9. This application is accordingly dismissed.

¶37

However, the option of the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail shall remain unfettered. If the petitioner so appears and applies for bail, needless to say, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously, preferably on the date of surrender itself.

¶38

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.

¶39

¶40

[True copy]

¶41

P.A to Judge

Muhammed Riyas v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Riyas v. the State of Kerala

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

Arunkumar Vs State of Kerala

Ajay Mohandas Vs the State of Kerala

Ajeesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Srejith Vs State of Kerala

Shajith Vs State of Kerala

Sreelal @ Lal Vs State of Kerala