Allowed

Rahila Beevi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2017Bail Appl./280/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of two accused charged with murder and attempted murder under SC/ST Act. The court found investigation nearly complete regarding the child witness protection issue and ordered release on caution with specific reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail with Rs.50,000 each as bond, required to report every Tuesday for three months, prohibited from entering Pangode police station jurisdiction.

Rahila Beevi Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

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

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 280 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Bail Appl. 9024/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 27-12-2016

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 2426/2016 of THE SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM DATED 08-12-2016 CRIME NO. 1276/2016 OF PANGODE POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/A1 & A2:

¶9

1. RAHILA BEEVI AGED 47, D/O.ARIFA BEEVI, HRS MANZIL, CHANDAKUNNU COLONY, PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

2. SAGAR AGED 21, S/O.HUSSAIN, HRS MANZIL, CHANDAKUNNU COLONY, PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTED THROUGH THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

R BY ADV.PRIYA SHANAVAS,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-012017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B.A.NO.280 OF 2017

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶20

ANNEXURE A-PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1276/2016 OF PANGODE POLICE STATION

¶21

ANNEXURE B-PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.12.2016 IN CRL.M.C 2426/2016 OF THE SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶22

ANNEXURE C- PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2016 IN B.A.NO 9024/2016

¶23

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

SKS P.A TO JUDGE

A.M.BABU, J.

B.A.NO. 280 OF 2017

Dated 16^th January, 2017

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Accused 1 and 2 in crime no.1276/2016 of the Pangode

¶32

police station are the petitioners. They are in custody. They have allegedly committed offences punishable under Sec.302 of the IPC read with IPC 34 and under Sec.3 (1) ( r) and (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Bail is sought under Sec.439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶33

The prosecution case may be summarized as below: The third accused had a live-in relationship with the de facto complainant who died later. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the mother and brother respectively of the third accused. The de facto complainant on 9.11.2016 went to the house of the accused persons in search of

¶34

the third accused in order to question his relationship with another

¶35

woman. The third accused hid himself inside the house. The

¶36

petitioners came out. There was an altercation. The first petitioner

¶37

¶38

went inside the house and came back with a bottle of kerosene.

¶39

She poured kerosene on the de facto complainant and set fire to.

¶40

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

¶41

Grant of bail is strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The defence version pleaded in the application is that

¶42

the de facto complainant herself brought kerosene, poured it on herself and kindled herself.

¶43

This is the second bail application of the same petitioners in the same crime. The earlier one was B.A 9024/2016. I dismissed it on 27.12.2016. I perused the case diary on that day. I was convinced that papers in the case diary contained materials against the petitioners prima facie to connect them to the offences alleged against them. The postmortem certificate showed 40% burn injury on body of the deceased. When I refused bail, the investigation was in progress. I am told today by the learned

¶44

¶45

Public Prosecutor that the investigating officer is awaiting the report from the forensic science laboratory to file the final report. That means the investigation is more or less complete. The petitioners are in custody since 11.11.2016. Their continued custody does not appear to be necessary as the investigation is almost on its close.

¶46

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the child of the deceased witnessed the incident. The learned Public Prosecutor apprehends intimidation and insult on the child, and even danger to the life of the little girl aged 13 years. The apprehension may be well founded, but it can be taken care of by directing the petitioners not to enter the area where the child lives.

¶47

In the result, the bail application is allowed. The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bonds for Rs.50,000/each with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate who has jurisdiction to commit the case to

¶48

¶49

the Court of Session. The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 10 a.m and 11.a.m on every Tuesday

¶50

for a period of three months even if the final report is filed in the meantime. The petitioners shall not intimidate witnesses or try to influence them. The petitioners shall not destroy evidence or tamper with it. The petitioners shall not enter the area within the jurisdictional limits of the Pangode police station for a period of three months except for reporting to the investigating officer on every Tuesday. The learned Magistrate/Sessions Judge is hereby empowered to cancel the bail in the event of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above.

¶51

sks/16.1.2017 A.M.BABU Judge

Rahila Beevi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahila Beevi 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

Chandrahasa Vs State of Kerala

K.M.Jalaludeen Vs State of Kerala

Jaseel Vs State of Kerala

Naga @ Nagamma Vs State of Kerala

Jose C.T Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Uvais Haji Vs State of Kerala