Allowed

Muhammed Shafi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jan 2018Bail Appl./61/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to an accused facing severe sexual offence charges, including rape and POCSO, considering the prima facie case against him and the stage of investigation, subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to bond execution with sureties, appearance before IO, non-interference with witnesses/victim, no new offences, and passport surrender.

Muhammed Shafi Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 5TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 61 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.1024/2017 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

MUHAMMED SHAFI, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.ABU, MURATTAMMAL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O., PATHIMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.P.E.SAJAL

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶16

B.A. No.61 of 2018

¶17

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.1024 of 2017 of the Kunnamangalam Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under sections 354(c), 376(2) (n) of the IPC and under section 3 read with section 4, 5(1) read with section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012.

¶21

The victim in the instant case is a lady aged 21 years. According to her, she is a married lady and is not in good terms with her husband. While she was studying in the 10^th standard, the petitioner is alleged to have taken certain photographs while she was bathing in the river. Using the said photographs, the victim was threatened and she was subjected to sexual abuse in the month of June, 2013. Even

¶22

BA 61/2018

¶23

¶24

thereafter, the acts were repeated. She got married thereafter. The petitioner used to contact her even thereafter and threatened her that the photographs would be shown to her husband. By so threatening, she was subjected to sexual intercourse. It is alleged that on 22.10.2017, the petitioner entered her house and subjected her to rape. Stating these allegations, a complaint was filed on 6.12.2017 based on which the aforesaid crime was registered.

¶25

The learned counsel submits that the petitioner and the victim were in love, but due to financial disparity the family of the victim did not agree to solemnize their marriage. The victim married a man in the year 2015. However, their relationship became strained. After separation from her husband, the victim insisted that the petitioner should marry her. When her request was not acceded to, false allegations are being raised is the submission. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner

¶26

BA 61/2018

¶27

¶28

was arrested on 6.12.2017 and has been in custody since then.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the said prayer. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, investigation conducted till date reveals that the petitioner herein had forwarded nude photographs of the victim to her husband which led to their relationship becoming strained.

¶30

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. It appears that the allegations are in respect of an incident which took place in the year 2013 and thereafter. The petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case from the version of the victim herself. The allegation of taking of photographs and forwarding the same to the husband of the victim is not borne out from the materials in the case diary.

¶31

Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the materials in support thereof, the antecedents of the petitioner, the stage of investigation, the period of

¶32

BA 61/2018

¶33

¶34

detention undergone and the reasonable possibility of ensuring the presence of the petitioner at the stage of trial,

¶35

I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶36

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶37

(a) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

¶38

(b) The petitioner shall continue to appear before the Investigating Officer on all Sundays between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., for a period of three months or till the final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶39

(c) The petitioner 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.

¶40

(d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

¶41

(e) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the court below or if he does not have one, he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release. Application for release of the passport, if any, shall be considered by the Trial court at the appropriate stage.

¶42

BA 61/2018

¶43

¶44

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the

¶45

application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶46

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶47

vps 25/1xx /True Copy/ PS to Judge

Muhammed Shafi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Shafi 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

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Jayachandran Vs State of Kerala

Kumaran K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Saidalavi Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Mr. Prafullanraged Vs the State of Kerala