Allowed

Saifudheen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2018Bail Appl./2455/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed by an accused in a rape case. Noting discrepancies in the victim's statement and her affidavit retracting earlier allegations, the Court held that further detention was not warranted and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail execution a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for Rs.50,000/- subject to conditions.

Saifudheen Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | 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 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2455 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 84/2017 OF POOKOOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED

¶8

SAIFUDHEEN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O SAINUDHEEN, MANGATT VALAPPIL HOUSE, NILAMBUR.P.O, CHANDAKUNNU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. (IN CRIME NO.84/2017 OF POOKKOOTTUMPADAM POLICE STATION IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT).

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

DSV/-

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J.

¶16

B.A.No.2455 of 2018

¶17

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.84 of 2017 of Pokkottumpadam Police Station, registered under Sections 450 and 376 of IPC.

¶21

The victim in the instant case is a lady aged 28 years. She is married and is living with her husband. According to the victim, on 7.6.2017 at about 3.00 a.m., the applicant entered the house of the de facto complainant and after forcing her husband to stay in the kitchen, entered her bed room and subjected her to rape.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant was remanded on 10.6.2017 and has been in custody. According to the learned counsel, there are some monetary transactions between her husband and the de facto complainant, which led to the registration of the Crime. The applicant has also filed Annexure-A3 affidavit sworn to by the de

¶23

B.A.No.2455/2018

¶24

¶25

facto complainant, wherein it is stated that the husband of the de facto complainant is a friend of the applicant and the allegations levelled against the applicant are not fully correct. She states that the disputes have been settled.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to obtain specific instructions. It is submitted that the statement of the victim was recorded and she has stated in unequivocal terms that her assertions in the affidavit are true. However, it is submitted that the antecedents of the applicant are bad.

¶27

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. It appears that there are minor discrepancies in the information furnished by the victim. Furthermore, in Annexure-A3 affidavit, the victim has resiled from her earlier version. The applicant has been undergoing incarceration from 10.6.2017 and final report has already been laid. Further detention in the facts and circumstances does not appear to be warranted.

¶28

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a

¶29

B.A.No.2455/2018

¶30

¶31

bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the

¶32

satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. The above

¶33

order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶34

1). The applicant shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence. He shall not make any attempt to contact the victim or her family members.

¶35

2). The applicant shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

¶36

3). The applicant shall not leave India without the permission of the court having jurisdiction and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the court within a week; If release of the passport is required at a later period, the applicant shall be at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court having jurisdiction.

¶37

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 in accordance with the law.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDGE.

¶40

Acd

¶41

//true copy//

¶42

P.A to Judge

Saifudheen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saifudheen 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

Sajith Vs State of Kerala

Shibu @ Thumpi Vs the State of Kerala

Babu K.V Vs State of Kerala

Pushpangadan Vs State of Kerala

Devadas P.K Vs State of Kerala

Binoy Vs State of Kerala