Allowed

Rakhimol v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jun 2016Bail Appl./3473/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, a minor accused in an assault case, holding that custodial interrogation was unwarranted due to the existence of a related case initiated by the victim against the petitioner's father. Conditions imposed included surrender for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to surrender for interrogation within two weeks, executing a bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties, and complying with specific undertakings regarding witnesses and further conduct.

Rakhimol Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/23RD JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3473 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 984/2016 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/FIRST ACCUSED :

¶8

RAKHIMOL, AGED 18 YEARS,

¶9

D/O.REGHUVARAN, NEDUMPALLIL PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PALIEKARA MURI, THIRUVALLA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT :

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PIN- 689 1010, (CRIME NO.984/2016).

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶18

B.A.No.3473 of 2016

¶19

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

1.This is an application for pre arrest bail filed under S.438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

2.The petitioner, a girl admittedly aged 18 years, is the 1^st accused in Crime No.984/2016 of Thiruvalla police station registered inter alia for the offence under S.323, 324, 326 and 341 of the IPC.

¶23

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 30.03.2016 at 6.30 p.m., the petitioner herein had attacked the daughter of the de facto complainant and when the de facto complainant interfered, the father of the petitioner attacked him and his wife with a wooden stick causing fracture.

¶24

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

¶25

B.A.No.3473 of 2016 : 2 :

¶26

that the allegations are absolutely false. It is also submitted that at the instance of the petitioner herein, Crime No.985/2015 was registered under S.354 and 452 of the IPC. The allegation in the said case was that the de facto complainant had trespassed into the house of the petitioner herein and had assaulted her. It is further urged by the learned counsel that the allegations are all directed against the father of the petitioner herein and he was arrested on 05.04.2016 and was enlarged on bail as per order dated 26.04.2016 in B.A.No.2875/2016.

¶27

5.I have heard the learned public prosecutor as well.

¶28

6.Having regard to the facts and circumstances and taking note of the nature and gravity of the allegations and also the fact a crime was registered at the instance of the petitioner in respect of an incident which took place within the precincts of her house, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is unwarranted.

¶29

B.A.No.3473 of 2016 : 3 :

¶30

In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶31

i). Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within a period of two weeks and after interrogation, she shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer effecting the arrest. In that event, she shall be released on bail in Crime No.984/2016 of Thiruvalla police station.

¶32

ii). The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶33

iii). The petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶34

iv). The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶35

v). The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶36

vi). In case of violation of any of the above

¶37

B.A.No.3473 of 2016 : 4 :

¶38

conditions, the officer concerned shall be empowered to arrest the petitioner as if no orders have been passed.

¶39

This application is allowed as above.

¶40

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.

¶41

¶42

[True copy]

¶43

P.A to Judge

Rakhimol v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakhimol 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish K.A. Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ashraf B.I Vs the State of Kerala

Sahadevan Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Chandrashekaran Vs State of Kerala