Allowed

Ashraf M.K. v. SHO Kunnapuram Police Station

Kerala HC22 Feb 2016Bail Appl./681/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Kerala High Court considered a bail application filed by the first accused in a POCSO Act and IPC case involving alleged abduction and attempted rape. The court noted that the investigation had substantially progressed and the victim's statement was recorded. Upon balancing the nature of allegations against the contention regarding the victim's age, the court granted bail s

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to execution of bond, appearance before Investigation Officer on Tuesdays, no intimidation of complainant or witnesses, and no involvement in other offences.

Ashraf M.K. Vs SHO Kunnapuram Police Station — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/3RD PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 681 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1169/2015 OF KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ASHRAF M.K., S/O. SARA UMMA, AGED 28 YEARS, ABDU VILLA, MADATHIKOVVAL, NARATH, KANNUR-670 601.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SRI.K.ASHIS.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

SHO KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y. LALIZA.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

B.A.No.681 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 22^nd day of February, 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.1169/2015 of Kannapuram Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 366 (A), 506)1) of the IPC and Section 7 read with 8 of POCSO Act.

¶20

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 19.12.2015, while the victim girl who was about 17 years was on her way to the school, the accused intercepted her and offered to drop her at school. He is alleged to have abducted her and thereafter, taken to Banglore where they stayed together. It is alleged that the petitioner herein attempted to commit rape of her.

¶21

He is custody since 21.12.2015. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that he was in love with the girl and she turns 18 in the month of May, 2016. However, the learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted that the petitioner herein is already married.

¶22

Having regard to the fact that the

¶23

B.A.No.1179 of 2016 2

¶24

investigation has substantially progressed, section 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim has been recorded and having regard to the nature of allegations, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶25

(a) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶26

(b) He shall appear before the Investigation Officer on all Tuesdays between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. till the final report is filed.

¶27

(c) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant and the witnesses nor shall he interfere in the process of investigation.

¶28

(d) He shall not get involved in any other identical offences.

¶29

The bail application is allowed.

¶30

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶31

//TRUE COPY//

¶32

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶33

Ashraf M.K. v. SHO Kunnapuram Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf M.K. v. SHO Kunnapuram Police Station

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

Riyas Vs State of Kerala

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Vipin M. Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Rossy Vs State of Kerala

Manu Vs State of Kerala

K.R.Mohandas Vs State of Kerala