Allowed

Abid K. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Oct 2019Bail Appl./5875/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC, holding that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The applicant is to appear for interrogation within ten days and may be released on bail if arrest is proposed.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Applicant to appear for interrogation within 10 days; Bail on bond with conditions if arrested.

Abid K. Vs the 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

BAIL APPL..NO.5875 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C. NO.824/2019 DATED 30-07-2019 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO.340/2019 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶9

ABID K. AGED 27 YEARS S/O.UMMAR, KUTTOOSAKKANAKAM HOUSE, OMO ROAD, PONNANI NORTH, PONNANI NAGARAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN ASHOK IYYANI SMT.NEENA JAMES

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM-682031

¶13

2 ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED JAMSHEER S/O KHALEEL, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, CHANA ROAD, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN-679577.

¶14

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.09.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.2/2019 IN BA-5875/2019.

¶15

SRI RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

BAIL APPL..NO.5875 OF 2019 2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

The applicant herein is the 1^st accused in Crime No.340 of 2019 of the Ponnani Police Station registered under Sections 452, 323, 324 and 506(i) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶21

According to the prosecution, applicant herein as well as the 2^nd accused were the accused in an earlier crime registered at the instance of the de facto complainant under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The accused is alleged to have demanded the de facto complainant to withdraw the case. When he refused, on 06.07.2019 at about 10 a.m., the accused are alleged to have trespassed into the shop of the de facto complainant and after slapping him, on his face, attacked him with a weapon causing injuries.

¶22

Sri. Arun Ashok Iyyani, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that there is no truth in the allegations. According to the learned counsel, Annexure -II would reveal that pre-arrest bail was granted to the applicant in Crime No.747 of 2016 based on a submission of the de facto complainant that he has no grievance. If that be the case, there is no reason for the applicant to attack the informant on 06.07.2019,

¶23

BAIL APPL..NO.5875 OF 2019 3

¶24

submits the learned counsel.

¶25

The informant has entered appearance through

¶26

Sri.K.B.Arunkumar, who seriously opposed the prayer.

¶27

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well and I have perused the records. It appears from the wound certificate dated 06.07.2019 that no injury whatsoever was sustained by the victim. In the facts and circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶28

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶29

i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶30

ii) He 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.

¶31

iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶32

BAIL APPL..NO.5875 OF 2019 4

¶33

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional

¶34

Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if

¶35

any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Abid K. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abid K. v. the 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

Sharan @ Sharan.K.Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Shabeeb Irfan N.K. Vs State of Kerala

Ummer.v.a Vs the State of Kerala

Ajith Thomson, Vs State of Kerala

Deepa Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh C. M. Vs State of Kerala