Allowed

Abdulla M. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jan 2016Bail Appl./94/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered a bail application for pre-arrest bail. The accused was charged with offences under S.294(b), 323, 354 IPC. The court found custodial interrogation unwarranted based on the nature of allegations, relative conduct, and other facts.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to execution of bond for 25,000/- with two sureties, prohibition of witness influence, availability for interrogation, and restriction on leaving India without permission.

Abdulla M. 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

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2016/2ND MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 94 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 641/2015 OF BADIYADUKA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ABDULLA. M., S/O. IBRAHIM, AGED 45 YEARS, MALAMKAI HOUSE, NEKRAJE P.O., KARADUKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S. HYMA.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶16

B.A.No.94 of 2016

¶17

-------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed under S.438 of the Code of

¶20

Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶21

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.641/2015 of Badiyaduka Police Station. The aforesaid crime is registered for offence punishable under S.294(b), 323, 354 of the IPC.

¶22

The essence of the prosecution allegation is that,

¶23

on 17.12.2015 at about 8.00 p.m., the petitioner entered the house of the defacto complainant and after abusing her

¶24

attempted to outrage her modesty.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶26

B.A.No.94 of 2016 : 2 :

¶27

petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. I have

¶28

perused the case diary as well.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated his innocence and submitted that there was a visa transaction involving the husband of the de facto complainant and the nephew of the accused. Some money was accepted from the nephew of the accused by the husband of the defacto complainant and this led to some strife. According to the learned counsel no incident of the nature alleged had transpired.

¶30

After having considered the rival contentions, the nature and gravity of the allegations, relative conduct of the parties and the other facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not warranted.

¶31

In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to

¶32

B.A.No.94 of 2016 : 3 :

¶33

the following conditions:

¶34

i). The petitioner shall be released on bail after interrogation on his executing a bond for 25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum if he is arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

vi). The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the jurisdictional magistrate.

¶40

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

¶41

B.A.No.94 of 2016 : 4 :

¶42

conditions, the jurisdictional magistrate shall be empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

¶43

This application is allowed as above.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.

¶46

¶47

[True copy]

¶48

P.A to Judge

Abdulla M. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdulla M. 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

Raphi Antony Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kanagendran Vs State of Kerala

Korah John Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs the State of Kerala

Ramachandran K Vs State of Kerala

Muthalib Vs State of Kerala