Allowed

Raziya Salam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2018Bail Appl./7/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted pre-arrest bail to petitioner Raziya Salam, accused of employing a minor girl under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and imposed standard bail conditions including surrender within ten days and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation within ten days, cooperation with investigation, and execution of a bond with sureties.

Raziya Salam 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 26TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 771/2017 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION , KASARGOD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

RAZIYA SALAM, AGED 54 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMADKUNHI, RAHATH MANZIL, NEELAMBAM, POST THIRKKARIPPUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶10

SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN (D-415)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CRIME NO.771/2017 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION), KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-670 001.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sdr/-

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶18

B.A.No. 7 of 2018

¶19

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2018

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1.This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

2.The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.771 of 2017 of the Chandera Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶23

3.The allegation is that during the period from 1.1.2017 till 21.12.2017 the petitioner herein, employed a minor girl aged 15 years as a housemaid and thus committed the offence.

¶24

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the petitioner herein is a lady aged 54 years. The allegation that she had employed a minor child as a housemaid is false according to the learned counsel. It is further alleged that she had not kept the child under bondage nor had withheld her earnings and according to the learned counsel, the

¶25

B.A.No.7 of 2018 2

¶26

offence under Section 79 of the aforesaid Act will not be attracted.

¶27

5.The learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the prayer submitted that the investigation so far conducted points to the involvement of the petitioner.

¶28

6.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. It does not appear to me that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted in the instant case. I am of the view that the relief of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶29

In the result, this application is allowed subject to the following conditions.

¶30

i).The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if she is proposed to be arrested, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶31

ii)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶32

iii)The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶33

B.A.No.7 of 2018 3

¶34

iv)The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶35

v) If she surrenders before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶36

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders

¶37

in accordance with the law.

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶39

//True Copy\

¶40

P.A to Judge

¶41

IAP

Raziya Salam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raziya Salam 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

Prof Capt. v.C.James Vs State of Kerala

Anuraj Manoharan Vs State of Kerala

Athul @ Monkuttan Vs State of Kerala

Nujab Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Anas Vs State of Kerala

Krishnendu Vs State of Kerala