Allowed

Shaffi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2019Bail Appl./1260/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the bail application suspended. The pending petition will produce before Special Sessions Court. Interrogation first. Afford opportunity of hearing. Bail decision pending interrogation. Consider affidavit filed by victim raising false allegations.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to interrogation by IO; to be presented to Special Sessions Court for final order on bona fide surrender; consider victim affidavit.

Shaffi Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1260 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.MC 2004/2017 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM DATED 19-01-2018

¶7

CRIME NO.3106/2017 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

SHAFFI

¶10

AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. SHEREEF, PULINKULATHU KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, PINAMOODU JUNCTION, KILIKOLLOOR,KOLLAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,. KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2 ADDL.R2. VICTIM XXXX (ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08.08.2018 IN CRL.M.A.8128/2018.)

BY ADVS.

SMT.S.SEETHA

OTHER PRESENT:

SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

B.A.No.1260/2018

¶21

¶22

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶23

B.A.No.1260 of 2018

¶24

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2019

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.3106/2017 of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam District, which has been registered for offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of POCSO Act and Section 66(e)and 67A of Information Technology Act,2000.

¶27

The prosecution case in short is that while the minor victim girl was studying in Std.IX in the year 2014, the petitioner/accused had come to her house at Pattathanam, Kollam and had forcibly removed her cloth and raped her and that he had also recorded the scenes of rape and threatened her that it will be disclosed and that he had raped victim many days. The incident is said to have happened in the year 2014, whereas the FIS statement is given by the victim only on 8.9.2017.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the above said allegations have been falsely foisted on the petitioner and further that the victim has filed Annexure-2 affidavit stating that she has no further complaint in the matter

¶29

B.A.No.1260/2018

¶30

¶31

and that the instant complaint has been given raising false allegations at the instigation of her mother.

¶32

After hearing both sides and after evaluating the facts and circumstances of this case, the following directions and orders are passed.

¶33

1) The petitioner will immediately personally appear before the Investigating Officer in relation to the instant crime No.3106/2017 of Kollam East Police Station for interrogation purposes without any further delay, at any rate, by 10 a.m. on any day on or before 28.6.2019.

¶34

2) The petitioner will fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the above interrogation process.

¶35

3) After the interrogation process is over, the Investigating Officer will produce the petitioner before the Special Sessions Court concerned, which is dealing with POCSO offences and thereupon the said Court will consider and pass orders on the bail application of the petitioner on the same day of his surrender, after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner's counsel and the learned Prosecutor and after taking note the facts and circumstances of this case. The specific contention of the petitioner based on Annexure-2 affidavit filed by the victim may also be adverted to and considered by the Special Sessions Court, while considering and deciding the bail application.

¶36

With these observations and directions, the above Bail

¶37

Application stands allowed.

¶38

sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶39

acd

Shaffi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaffi 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

Sajimol, Vs Sajitha Beegum

A.Shyni Vs Binu Alex

Rlv.Ramakrishnan @ K.R.Ramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Ajayakumar J Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh Nair Vs State of Kerala

Unais Vs State of Kerala