Allowed

Shakeer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Nov 2020Bail Appl./6659/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application filed by an accused mainly charged under IPC and POCSO. The Court imposed stringent conditions considering the pandemic-induced trial delay, the duration of detention, and the need to ensure the accused's presence in court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner discharged on bail with sureties and subject to conditions not contacting victim, not leaving Thrissur district, not influencing witnesses, and not committing offences.

Shakeer Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6659 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.784/2017 OF VADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION , THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHAKEER AGED 24 YEARS SON OF PAREED, KUNTHAYIL HOUSE, VALLERIPEEDIKA, VADAKKEKAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. 680506

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶12

SRI KP HARISH SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No.6659 OF 2020 2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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

¶17

Procedure.

¶18

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in S.C.No.481 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thrissur. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.784 of 2017 of Vadakkekadu Police Station. He is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 447, 427, 506, 509 and 354D of IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶19

The petitioner was granted bail by the Court of Session on 16.12.2017. However, on the ground that he intimidated the girl yet again and attacked her father, an application for cancellation of bail was filed by the investigating officer consequent to which the bail granted to him was cancelled. Though he moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge, the same was dismissed. He had then approached this Court and by Annexure-I order, his application was dismissed taking note of his antecedents.

¶20

Sri. V.A. Johnson, the learned counsel submits that the

¶21

Bail Appl..No.6659 OF 2020 3

¶22

petitioner has been in custody from 2.11.2019. He contended that the petitioner is innocent. It is contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable with imprisonment for upto three years, but at the same time, the petitioner has already undergone almost half the period. He would further contend that in view of the pandemic, there is no possibility of the trial taking place in the near future.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Crime No.784 of 2017 was registered in connection with an incident which took place on 9.11.2017. A minor girl was wrongfully restrained and threatened and later he had trespassed into the house of the child and had committed mischief. It is further submitted that the petitioner has later involved himself in three other crimes, one of which was for assaulting the father of the child and for causing serious injuries. Crime No. 495 of 2019 has also been registered for wrongfully restraining the victim in Crime No. 784 of 2017 and for assaulting her. He would point out that proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. was initiated and in spite of orders being passed, he has again committed crimes of similar nature. It is further submitted that proposal for initiation of Kerala Anti Social Activities ( Prevention) Act, 2007 is in the pipeline.

¶24

I have considered the submissions advanced. While considering the application for bail, this Court had taken note of his

¶25

Bail Appl..No.6659 OF 2020 4

¶26

antecedents and had dismissed the application by order dated 19.6.2020. The learned Sessions Judge was directed to expedite the trial proceedings. A report was called for from the learned Sessions Judge. It is stated in the report that due to the pandemic that the accused is seldom produced before court and the likelihood of the trial taking place in the near future is remote. The petitioner is a man aged 24 years and he has a case that he has been falsely implicated by the family members of the girl he loves. However, the fact remains that he is involved in more than three crimes. It cannot be forgotten that the allegations against him remain in the realm of allegations as he has not been found guilty by a court of law. It is settled by now that the principles which should guide the Courts in exercise of their discretion to grant bail or not are the probability of the accused appearing to take the trial and not his supposed guilt or innocence. As held by the Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , matters relating to bail are to be considered in a humane manner and compassionately without being carried away by the severity of the allegations. Having regard to the period of detention undergone, the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the stage of trial and the situation that has arisen due to the pandemic, I am of the view that by imposing stringent conditions to ensure the interest of the prosecution, he can now be released on bail.

¶27

Bail Appl..No.6659 OF 2020 5

¶28

In the result, this application will stand allowed. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions which shall strictly be complied with.

¶29

1).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.

¶30

2). The petitioner shall not make an attempt to contact the victim or her family members.

¶31

The petitioner shall not enter Thrissur District except for appearing before the court of law or the investigating agency in connection with the instant case or in any other case in which he is involved.

¶32

4).The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Shakeer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeer 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. O a Ninan Vs the District Collector

O.K. Venugopal, Vs the District Collector

C.M.Mustaffa Vs Additional Tahsildar, Kothamangalam Taluk

Moitheenkutty, Vs the Secretary

Shaiju@Laiju Vs State of Kerala

M.K. Prabhakaran, Vs the District Collector