Allowed

Nafeesath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Sept 2016Bail Appl./6777/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Court granted pre-arrest bail to three accused persons charged under Sections 448, 452, and 363 r/w 34 of the IPC. The charges arose from a dispute over the custody of a minor child where a petition under the Guardian and Wards Act was pending before a competent court. The Court held that since the custody rights were yet to be decided, bail was appropriate.

What did the court decide?

The petition for pre-arrest bail is allowed. Petitioners ordered to be released on bail with two solvent sureties for 50,000/- each on conditions of reporting, not leaving the local limits, and not in

Nafeesath Vs State of Kerala — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/8TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6777 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 699/2016 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. NAFEESATH, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O. LATE RUKHIYA, RUKHIYA MANZIL, NEAR GOVERNMENT U.P. SCHOOL, PADNE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. M.M.AYSHA, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O. LATE RUKHIYA, RUKHIYA MANZIL, NEAR GOVERNMENT U.P. SCHOOL, PADNE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

3. M.M. MOHAMMEDALI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE RUKHIYA, RUKHIYA MANZIL, NEAR GOVERNMENT U.P. SCHOOL, PADNE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING S.H.O. CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT – 671 121.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

P.UBAID, J.

¶18

--------------------------------------B.A No.6777 of 2016

¶19

---------------------------------------

¶20

Dated this the 30^th day of September, 2016

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners herein are the three accused in Crime No.699/2016 of the Chandera Police Station, registered under Sections 448, 452 and 363 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They seek pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest by the police.

¶23

The petitioners are the brother and sisters of the deceased wife of the defacto complainant. The issue between them is concerning the right of guardianship of the complainant's minor daughter aged 3 ½ years. After the death of the wife, the complainant married another lady, and then started dispute regarding the custody. The prosecution case is that on 17.8.2016 these petitioners trespassed into the house of the complainant and took away his minor daughter on a claim of guardianship.

¶24

On a perusal of the materials I find that there is serious dispute between the parties concerning the custody of

¶25

B.A No.6777 of 2016 2

¶26

the child. The second petitioner herein has already filed an original petition under the Guardian and Wards Act for a declaration that she is the legal guardian entitled for custody of the minor girl. The said dispute is pending. It is yet to be decided by the competent court, as to who is entitled to have custody and guardianship of the said minor child. It appears that the alleged incident happened when the said dispute was pending. In the above situation where things on the claim for custody are yet to be decided by the right court, I feel it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners.

¶27

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing 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. Bail is granted on condition that

¶28

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Thursdays for a period of six weeks.

¶29

b) The petitioners shall not leave the limits of Chandera Police Station for a period of six weeks.

¶30

¶31

B.A No.6777 of 2016

¶32

c) The petitioners shall not in any manner

¶33

influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or they 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

Nafeesath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nafeesath 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

Sibin John Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Rakesh Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh Kumar S. Vs State of Kerala

Sajeevan Vs State of Kerala