Allowed

Abdul Kareem v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2017Bail Appl./138/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. refusing an FIR related to rape. The court noted suspicious circumstances including delayed police reporting and prior sexual relations between petitioner and victim as grounds for granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail after interrogation with a bond of Rs. 50,000 ensuring appearance and non-interference with witnesses or victim.

Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/26TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 138 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 552/2016 OF AREACODE POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT PALAPARAMB HOUSE, KALLINGAL, KEEZHUPARAMBA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D COUTH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, AREACODE POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAJJU.S

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶16

B.A.No.138 of 2017

¶17

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2017

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.552 of 2016 of Areacode Police Station registered for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC.

¶21

The prosecution case is that on 17.5.2014 and 18.5.2014, the petitioner committed rape on the victim. The learned counsel submits that the whole story is false.

¶22

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

¶23

The victim is the sister-in-law of the petitioner. At the relevant time, she was a divorcee. Admittedly, the petitioner and the victim had sexual intercourse more than once. The police was informed of the incident only after 2½ years. These are all suspicious circumstances. So I am inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail. In the result, the application is allowed.

¶24

In the result, this application is allowed.

¶25

B.A.No.138 of 2017 2

¶26

i. The petitioner shall be released on bail after interrogation on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if he is arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶27

ii. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶28

iii. He shall not get himself involved in any other criminal case while he is on bail.

¶29

iv. He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses.

¶30

v. He shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.

¶31

vi. He shall not contact or communicate with the

¶32

victim directly or indirectly.

¶33

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶34

learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE

¶37

¶38

/True copy/

¶39

P.A. to Judge

Abdul Kareem v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Kareem 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

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Linu Mathew Vs State of Kerala

John Joseph @ Johny Pappu Vs State of Kerala

Jayarajan Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Anil Raj @ Kunjikannan Vs State of Kerala