Allowed

Jabiriya v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Sept 2016Bail Appl./5974/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, a woman accused of employing a juvenile for hazardous jobs. The court noted her complicity was doubtful as she was prosecuted primarily due to being the wife of the main accused who remains at large, and ordered strict bail conditions including reporting to the IO and restricted movement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail by executing a bond with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, subject to conditions of reporting, restricted residence, and no contact with witnesses.

Jabiriya 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 P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/17TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5974 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 763/2016 OF CHOKLI POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶7

-----------

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

JABIRIYA, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O NASAR, CHAMALIYIL HOUSE, KEEZHMADAM, CHOKLI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN SMT.MINI.V.A.

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI SAJJEI.S.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.V.

¶16

P.UBAID, J.

¶17

- - - - B.A.No. 5974 of 2016

¶18

¶19

Dated this the 08^th day of September, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner herein seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No. 763 of 2016 of the Chokli Police Station, Kannur, registered under Section 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 75 and 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015. She is the third accused in the above crime.

¶22

The petitioner herein is the wife of the second accused. The prosecution case is that during June 2013 to June 2016, the second accused Nazar employed a juvenile girl aged 14 years at his house for hazardous jobs. The first accused is the person who brought the girl from Andra Pradesh, and the accused Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of the girl. On a complaint received from the Coordinator, Child line Committee, Kannur, the Police registered this

¶23

B.A.No. 5974 of 2016

¶24

-2-

¶25

crime, and rescued the child. The accused Nos. 4 and 5 are now on bail. The Police has not so far arrested the accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are the main accused. The second accused is the person who employed the girl at his house knowing that she is a juvenile, and the first accused is the person who brought the child from Andra Pradesh. It appears that this petitioner is being prosecuted only on the ground that she is the wife of the second accused. As regards this petitioner, things are to an extent doubtful regarding complicity. Her husband remains to be arrested.

¶26

In the nature of the allegations, and also the materials so far collected, I feel it appropriate to grant prearrest bail to the petitioner. It is made clear that this order will not in any manner go to the benefit of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are the main accused, and who are yet to be arrested.

¶27

In the result, this petition for pre-arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on

¶28

B.A.No. 5974 of 2016

¶29

-3-

¶30

her executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 25,000/-₹ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate or the learned Special Judge having jurisdiction, in case of her arrest in connection with Crime No. 763 of 2016 of the Chokli Police Station, Kannur. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶31

a) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him for interrogation.

¶32

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

¶33

c) The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or she shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Jabiriya v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jabiriya 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

Sindhu Vs State of Kerala

Pavin Vs State of Kerala

Thankappan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Rasheed P.T. Vs State of Kerala

Mr. T. Kumaresan Vs State of Kerala

Velayudhan Vs State of Kerala