Allowed

Ummer Sakafi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Mar 2017Bail Appl./1017/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a bail application filed by a petitioner accused under POCSO and IPC sections for intercourse with his minor daughter. The court noted the intact hymen suggested suspicious prosecution circumstances and estrangement within the home, granting bail subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, subject to non-contact orders, village exclusion, witness protection, and passport surrender provisions.

Ummer Sakafi Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/30TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1017 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 131/2016 OF POTHUKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

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

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

UMMER SAKAFI,

¶10

AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, MAVUNGAL HOUSE, KODEERI,KURUMBALANGODE AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031

¶14

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHUKAL POLICE STATION, POTHUKAL, MALAPPURAM, KERALA-676509

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI AJITH MURALI

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.V.

¶18

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶19

B.A.No.1017 of 2017

¶20

Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2017

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petition filed under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C.

¶23

Petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.331 of 2016 on the

¶24

files of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Manjeri registered for the offences under Sections 342, 506(ii) and 376(c) of the IPC, Section 5(n)(I) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act.

¶25

The prosecution case is that the petitioner used to have sexual intercourse with his minor daughter.

¶26

The learned counsel submits that the allegation is false and final report has already been filed.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The petitioner is the father of the victim. At the relevant time, the girl was aged about 17 years. The allegation is that he used to have sexual intercourse with her every week for the last two years or so.

¶29

B.A.No.1017 of 2017

¶30

¶31

The learned counsel submits that it is estrangement between the petitioner and his wife that caused her to get this false case registered through their daughter.

¶32

I have perused the medical certificate of the victim. Her hymen is intact. This is a very suspicious circumstance. He has been in custody since 12.3.2016. Having regard to the fact that the medical evidence does not fully support the prosecution case and that there is estrangement between the petitioner and his wife, I am inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioner.

¶33

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed.

¶34

i. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the lower court concerned.

¶35

ii. He shall not contact or communicate with the victim, her sister or her mother directly or indirectly. Nor shall he enter the premises in which they reside.

¶36

iii. He shall not enter the village in which the victim resides.

¶37

B.A.No.1017 of 2017

¶38

¶39

iv. He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall he get himself involved in any other criminal case.

¶40

v. He shall surrender his passport before the lower court concerned or if he does not have one he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release.

¶41

vi. He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court of enquiry or trial court, as the case may be.

¶42

In case of violation, the lower court concerned is empowered

¶43

to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE

¶46

¶47

/True copy/

¶48

P.A. to Judge

Ummer Sakafi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummer Sakafi 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

Muhammed Amirul Islam Vs State of Kerala

Bhuvanachandran Vs State of Kerala

Girija K Vs State of Kerala

Ummer Sakafi Vs State of Kerala

Jamaluddeen Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Samad Vs State of Kerala