Allowed

Sarafudeen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2018Bail Appl./371/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to three accused persons facing charges including criminal trespass, abetment to outrage modesty, and kidnapping, dispensing with custodial interrogation and imposing strict conditions for release on bail.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties and complied with conditions regarding appearance, non-interference with witnesses, and entry into the

Sarafudeen 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 R.NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 26TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 371 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 720/2017 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT ----------------

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 :

¶8

1 SARAFUDEEN, AGED 26 YEARS,

¶9

S/O. SULAIMAN, NISAMUDHEEN NAGAR, CHATTANCHAL, THEKKIL VILLAGE, VIDHYANAGAR, KASARGODE DISTRICT.

¶10

2 SHIHABUDEEN,AGED 35 YEARS,

¶11

S/O. SULAIMAN, NISAMUDHEEN NAGAR, CHATTANCHAL, THEKKIL VILLAGE, VIDHYANAGAR, KASARGODE DISTRICT.

¶12

3 MUHAMMED, AGED 39 YEARS,

¶13

S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, NISAMUDHEEN NAGAR, CHATTANCHAL, THEKKIL VILLAGE, VIDHYANAGAR, KASARGODE DISTRICT.

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶15

SRI.K.K.AKHIL

¶16

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶17

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.B.UDAYAKUMAR

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

¶22

Bail Application No.371 of 2018

¶23

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2018

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶26

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶27

The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in the case registered as Crime No.720/2017 of Vidhyanagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 363, 342, 323 and 506(ii) read with 149 IPC. The prosecution case is that on 25.11.2017, at about 23.00 hours, the three accused together criminally trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and they forcibly took away the son of the de facto complainant, who is aged 15 years, in a car and at the side of a public road, they beat him and caused hurt to him and also threatened him that they would kill him. It is stated that on 26.11.2017, at

¶28

B.A.371/18 :2:

¶29

about, 04.00 hours, the accused took back the son of the de facto complainant to his house. It is alleged that then they caused damage to the furniture there.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the Case Diary.

¶31

It is true that the act alleged to have been committed by the accused is serious in nature. But, the only non-bailable offence alleged against the accused is under Section 452 IPC. In this connection it is to be noted that on the basis of the statement given to the police by the son of the de facto complainant on 04.12.2017 a case had been registered against the first petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC and also under Section 7 read with 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. In this statement given to the police by the son of the de facto complainant on 04.12.2017, no reference is made to the incident that took place on 25.11.2017. It is also to be noted that the First Information Statement regarding the incident in the instant case was

¶32

B.A.371/18 :3:

¶33

given to the police by the de facto complainant only on 20.12.2017. The incident had allegedly occurred on 25.11.2017. There is only a vague explanation given in the First Information Statement that the delay in giving information to the police occurred on account of fear. These aspects throw considerable doubt with regard to the entire truth of the incident alleged to have occurred on 25.11.2017. However, it is not a matter to be considered

¶34

by this Court at this stage. At any rate, custodial interrogation of the petitioners appears to be not necessary to have an effective investigation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the discretion of the court can be exercised in favour of the petitioners to grant them pre-arrest bail on imposing conditions to ensure free and fair investigation of the case.

¶35

In the result, the petition is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

¶36

i. The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only)

¶37

B.A.371/18 :4:

¶38

each with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of their arrest by police in Crime No.720/2017 of Vidhyanagar Police Station.

¶39

ii. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 9.00 AM and 11.00 AM on all Mondays and Thursdays for a period of two months from the date of their release on bail.

¶40

iii.The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses including the de facto complainant and his son. They shall not make any attempt to tamper with the evidence in this case.

¶41

iv. The petitioners shall not enter into the limits of Vidhyanagar Police Station for a period of one month after their release on bail except for the purpose of appearance before the Investigating Officer in this case or any other case or for appearance in any court of law.

¶42

v. The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the court having jurisdiction over the case.

¶43

B.A.371/18 :5:

¶44

vi.The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed in writing to do so.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶47

okb.

¶48

//True Copy// P.A. to Judge

Sarafudeen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarafudeen 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

P.C.Jayadevan Vs State of Kerala

Anas Vs State of Kerala

Sameesh Bhasi @ Sami Vs State of Kerala

F. Edison Vs the Station House Officer, Kunnamkulam Police Station

Dr. Biju Luke George Vs State of Kerala

Bharathan M P Vs State of Kerala