Allowed

Shoukathali C.K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Mar 2018Bail Appl./1003/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to the petitioner, an ustad accused of sexual offenses against a minor under the POCSO Act, imposing stringent conditions including mandatory interrogation, cooperation with police, restrictions on approaching the victim, and deployment of a constable to monitor the victim's residence.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on executing bond for Rs. 40,000 and two sureties, subject to stringent conditions including police monitoring and prohibition from approaching the minor victim.

Shoukathali C.K. Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1003 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 154/2019 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT (ATROCITIES & SEXUAL VIOLENCE AG

¶7

CRIME NO. 16/2019 OF Palode Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

MOHAMMED NIYAS, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.P.A.EASA, RESIDING AT VETTIKKAL HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA.P.O., ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY) SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALODE POLICE STATION, PALODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN695001 (THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.)

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

==================

B.A.No. 1003 of 2019

==================

Dated this the 5^th day of April, 2019

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.16/2019 of Palode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2015 and Sec. 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

¶23

The gist of the prosecution case is that the petitioner being the ustad of a religious institution, which is teaching Koran and giving Islamic teachings to children, had called the minor victim boy aged 14 years to the Madrassa on a Saturday in the month of December, 2018 and had taken him to a darkroom, made him to sit in a cot, kissed him, undo the button of his shirt, patted over chest, removed his trousers and patted on his genitals and during this time, the petitioner accused has spoken sexually coloured words and thereby committed the abovesaid offences.

¶24

Sri.Babu Karukapadath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit on the basis of the instructions of his party

¶25

B.A.1003/19 - : 3 :-

¶26

that the abovesaid charges have been falsely foisted against the petitioner and that the petitioner is a married person having 7 children and even going by the admitted version of the minor victim boy, the alleged incident had taken place at a time when all the 7 children and his wife were there in the house, which is very adjacent to the Madrassa and that the very allegations are intrinsically improper and unbelievable and further that the father of the victim, who is a former student of the Madrassa, was a leader of the militant group called SDPI, and that the said group had tried to create communal tensions in the locality and that the petitioner as the ustad had opposed such extremist communal agenda of the father of the said student. Further that the minor victim is a former student of the Madrassa who had caused disturbance to other students during the class for which the petitioner had warned him and that the boy has used abusive words and filthy languages while among the students and the petitioner had brought these aspects to the notice of his parents. The petitioner's counsel would urge that these are the background facts which had given rise to such false allegations against the petitioner by using the minor boy.

¶27

The petitioner would point out that not even a single other

¶28

incident has been raised against the petitioner in the running of the

¶29

B.A.1003/19 - : 4 :-

¶30

Madrassa and that his reputation in the society has been unnecessarily tarnished in view of the false allegations. It is stated that the minor victim boy was sent away from the Madrassa some time prior to the alleged incident.

¶31

Per contra, the learned Prosecutor would point out that the allegations against the petitioner are very serious and further that the petitioner is still the ustad of the same institution and that there is possibility of the petitioner repeating such deeds, etc.

¶32

This court had asked a specific query to the learned Prosecutor as to whether the petitioner had involved in any other similar cases and as to whether any penetrative sexual assault has been raised against the petitioner, the learned Prosecutor would point out that except this case, no other case had come to the notice of the Police and further that there are no allegations of penetrative sexual assault against the petitioner in this case.

¶33

It is seen that the minor victim boy is no longer a student of the Madrassa. So chances of the petitioner having any access to the minor victim boy to influence or intimidate him on that account are not there. However, it has to be borne in mind that no serious allegations like penetrative sexual assault has been raised against the

¶34

petitioner. The chances of the petitioner influencing the victim boy

¶35

B.A.1003/19 - : 5 :-

¶36

could be dealt with by putting stringent conditions. Accordingly, following orders and directions are issued:

¶37

The petitioner shall personally appear before the

¶38

investigating officer in Crime No. 16/2019 of Palode Police Station for interrogation purposes at 10 a.m. on 12.4.2019. After the interrogation process, in case investigating officer arrests the petitioner in connection with the said crime, he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on furnishing two

¶39

solvent sureties for the like sum, each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶40

Further it is also ordered that it will be subject to following

¶41

conditions:-

¶42

(i) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶43

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

¶44

(iii) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when required in that connection.

¶45

(iv) The petitioner shall not influence witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

¶46

(v) The petitioner shall not go anywhere near the residence or the educational institution of the minor victim boy.

¶47

(vi) The investigating officer will ensure that a Police constable is deputed to the residence of the minor victim boy to ascertain whether the petitioner has in any manner intimidated or influenced the minor victim boy or his family members in connection with the above incident. If anything adverse against the petitioner is brought to the notice of the investigating officer, then the investigating officer will take necessary steps for cancellation of the bail.

¶48

If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the

¶49

B.A.1003/19 - : 6 :-

¶50

petitioner, then the jurisdictional court concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.

¶51

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.

¶52

sdk+

¶53

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

Shoukathali C.K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoukathali C.K. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveen Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Usmankutty Vs State of Kerala

Shirosh Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Nazeer.M.S Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Mathew Vs State of Kerala