Allowed

Mohammed Shareef @ Kunhnjon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2021Bail Appl./7075/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused of kidnapping and rape under Sections 363, 342, and 376 IPC. The court imposed strict conditions, including surrender, limited custody for investigation, an ex-gratia bond of Rs. 50,000, and prohibitions on contacting the victim or witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall be released on bail with a bond of Rs. 50,000, forfeiture of limited custody for investigation purposes, and submission to daily reporting at the investigating station.

Mohammed Shareef @ Kunhnjon Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 7075 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.265/2021 OF Tanur Police Station, Malappuram

¶7

PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶8

MOHAMMED SHAREEF @ KUNHNJON
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. HAMZA, MARAKKASSERY, THEYYALINGAL, NANNAMBRA P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 320
BY ADVS.
SUSANTH SHAJI
ALBIN A. JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENT/STATE/INVESTIGATING OFFICER AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031

¶12

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM 676 302

¶13

3 XXXXXXX (CICTIM IN CRIME NO. 265/2021 OF TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM)

¶14

SRI. C.N. PRABHAKARAN, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶16

09.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO. 7075 OF 2021 2

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶20

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.265/2021 of Tanur police station, Malappuram district, alleging commission of offences under Sections, 363, 342 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that, he kidnapped the de facto complainant in the month of April 2021 and took her along with his friend to a house at Kottakkal and committed rape on her. It is also alleged that the de facto complainant became pregnant and thereafter, medically terminated the pregnancy.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even if the allegations are accepted to be true, the offence of rape as defined under Section 375 of the IPC has not been committed and the relationship between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was purely consensual. It is submitted that there is delay in filing the complaint, inasmuch as the incident is alleged to have occurred in the month of April, 2021, while the statement which led to the registration of the crime

¶23

BAIL APPL. NO. 7075 OF 2021 3

¶24

was given only in the month of May 2021. It is submitted that the de facto complainant had raised similar allegations against two different individuals and Crime No.323/15 of Thanur police station and Crime No.240/2020 of Tanur police station have been registered against other persons on the basis of the complaint of the de facto complainant. It is submitted that Crime No.323/2015 is now pending as S.C. No.843/2016 before the Special Court and Crime No.240/2020 is now pending as S.C. No.87/2021 before the Sessions Court.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that in the year 2019, Crime No.282/2019 of Kalpakanchery police station was registered against the de facto complainant, alleging commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 506(i) and 392 r/w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code wherein the de facto complainant was the first accused. It is submitted that those proceedings were subsequently quashed by this court on the basis of settlement by order dated 03.08.2020 in Crl.M.C. No.3261/2020. It is submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter and for the purpose of investigation, custody of the petitioner is not required. It is also submitted that the petitioner will co-

¶26

BAIL APPL. NO. 7075 OF 2021 4

¶27

operate with the investigation in every manner possible and the limited custody of the petitioner is sufficient to complete the investigation in Crime No.265/2021 of Tanur police staiton.

¶28

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail. He submits that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious and the grant of anticipatory bail may affect the investigation . He submits that the petitioner is to be subjected to interrogation and the house to which the de facto complainant was taken etc., have to be identified. He also submits that the vehicle in which the de facto complainant was allegedly taken has to be recovered and for these purposes, custody of the petitioner is necessary.

¶29

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to strict conditions to ensure that the progress of investigation is not affected in any manner. Those conditions will also include a condition granting limited custody of the petitioner to the prosecution so as to ensure that all the procedures to be completed for a proper investigation into the matter by the prosecution can be undertaken.

¶30

BAIL APPL. NO. 7075 OF 2021 5

¶31

In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of arrest in crime No.265/2021 of Tanur police Station subject to the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶33

(ii) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer in Crime No. 265/2021 of Tanur police station at 09.00 am on 13.12.2021. The investigating officer may record the arrest of the petitioner and shall release him on bail in terms of this order. The petitioner shall, thereafter, appear every day at 09.00 am from 14.12.2021 till 31.12.2021 before the investigating officer in crime No.265/2021 and thereafter, whenever called upon to do so. He shall co-operate with the investigation in every manner.

¶34

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.265/2021 of Tanur police station;

¶35

BAIL APPL. NO. 7075 OF 2021 6

¶36

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶37

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No. 265/2021 of Tanur police station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.

sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

ajt

Mohammed Shareef @ Kunhnjon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Shareef @ Kunhnjon 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

Sajith Shanavas, Vs State of Kerala

Abdulla Shameer Vs State of Kerala

Xxxx Vs State of Kerala

Vijil Paulose Vs State of Kerala

Thomas @ Tomy Vs State of Kerala

Shabad M.A Vs State of Kerala