Allowed

Ummer Sakafi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Mar 2017Bail Appl./1021/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to an accused charged with aggravated offences under Sections 342, 354A IPC, and the PCPO Act for having sexual intercourse with his minor daughter, noting suspicious circumstances in his case and that his further detention was unnecessary for smooth trial conduct.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was granted bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties and subjected to specific conditions including prohibition from contacting victims and entering the village.

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. 1021 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 127/2016 OF POTHUKAL POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM ----------------

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

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

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHUKAL POLICE STATION, POTHUKAL, MALAPPURAM KERALA 676 509.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI AJITH MURALI

¶14

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

¶15

K.V.

¶16

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶17

B.A.No.1021 of 2017

¶18

Dated this the 21^st day of March, 2017

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

Petitioner is the accused in S.C.No.332 of 2016 on the

¶22

files of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Manjeri registered for the offences under Sections 342, 354A(i), 354A(ii) and 506(ii) of the IPC, Section 9(n) r/w Section 10 of Protection of Children from

¶23

Sexual Offences Act and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act.

¶24

The allegation is that the petitioner used to have sexual intercourse with his minor daughter every alternate week for the last two years or so.

¶25

The learned counsel submits that this is a false case got registered by the petitioner's wife who has been at logger heads with him.

¶26

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

¶27

The petitioner and his wife have seven children. They

¶28

were residing along with their two daughters and one son aged

¶29

about four years. The allegation is that he had sexual intercourse

¶30

B.A.No.1021 of 2017

¶31

¶32

with the victim for about two years. The medical certificate of the victim shows that her hymen was torn. He is the accused in S. C. No.331 of 2016 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Manjeri. The allegation in that case is that he used to have sexual intercourse with the sister of the victim in this case. I have granted bail to the petitioner as I noted some suspicious circumstances in that case. In this case also there are some suspicious circumstances. The petitioner and his wife are estranged. He has been in custody since 12.3.2016. His further detention is not necessary for smooth conduct of the trial. So I am inclined to grant his prayer.

¶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

B.A.No.1021 of 2017

¶37

¶38

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

¶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