Allowed

Habeeb P.H v. Ashna Ansar

Kerala HC1 Sept 2022Bail Appl./6205/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted regular bail to an 19-year-old accused of penetrative sexual assault and other offences under POCSO. The court held continued detention unnecessary in light of the petitioner's young age and existing custody despite serious allegations.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with a bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties upon execution of conditions for cooperation, non-interference, and jurisdictional compliance.

Habeeb P.H Vs Ashna Ansar — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 10 TH BHADRA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 6205 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.955/2022 OF PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ ACCUSED :

¶8

HABEEB P.H., AGED 19 YEARS, S/O HARIS, PUTHIYA VEETTIL HOUSE, THANGAL NAGAR, EDAKOCHI VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI, PIN – 682 006

¶9

BY ADV M.H.HANIS

¶10

RESPONDENT/ STATE :

¶11

1 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031 SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

BAIL APPL. NO. 6205 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶17

B.A.No.6205 of 2022

¶18

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶19

Dated this the 1^st day of September, 2022

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶22

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 955/2022 of Palluruthy Police Station alleging offences under Sections 450, 354, 376(2)(n), 506, and 323 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(a), 4, 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.

¶23

According to the prosecution, the accused who is aged 19 years got acquaintance with the victim girl, aged 17 years and after promising to marry her, committed penetrative sexual assault on her during the period from 25.03.2022 till 30.03.2022 and again on 07.04.2022 and 08.04.2022 and after the victim attained majority, withdrew from his offer to marry and thereby committed the offences alleged against him.

¶24

Sri.M.H.Hanis, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire incident, as alleged against the petitioner are false and that since the petitioner was arrested on 23.07.2022, the continued detention is not required for the purpose of investigation.

¶25

Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that even though the petitioner was arrested

¶26

¶27

BAIL APPL. NO. 6205 OF 2022

¶28

on 23.07.2022, the investigation is still continuing and hence bail ought not to be granted.

¶29

I have considered the rival contentions. The circumstances indicate a relationship between the petitioner and the victim. Though the offences alleged are serious in nature, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the young age of the petitioner, I am of the view that since the petitioner was arrested on 23.07.2022, the continued detention is not required.

¶30

Accordingly, I allow this bail application on the following

¶31

conditions :-

¶32

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him 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.

¶33

(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

¶34

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.

¶35

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

¶36

(e) Petitioner shall not enter into the jurisdictional limits of Palluruthy Police Station.

¶37

(f) Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.

¶38

BAIL APPL. NO. 6205 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.

¶41

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

¶42

RKM

Habeeb P.H v. Ashna Ansar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Habeeb P.H v. Ashna Ansar

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

K.Shamsudheen Vs Canara Bank

Prabeesh Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Rijumon S Vs State of Kerala

Lijo Vs State of Kerala

Sanal@Koniyan Vs State of Kerala