Allowed

Muhammed Sahail N K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Feb 2022Bail Appl./88/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application regarding rape and POCSO charges, High Court of Kerala allowed regular bail for a 21-year-old accused accused of offences, noting his age and custody duration. Bail granted subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail subject to conditions including bond execution with sureties, passport surrender, appearing before investigating officer every Saturday, and non-interference.

Muhammed Sahail N K Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 12TH MAGHA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 88 OF 2022

¶5

Crime No. 428/2021 of Mankada police station

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
BY ADV SOJAN MICHEAL

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA

¶10

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶11

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

SMT. SEETHA .S. (SR.PP)

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

BAIL APPL. NO. 88 OF 2022 2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This is an application for regular bail.

¶17

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 428/2021 of Mankada police station, Malappuram district, alleging commission of offence under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

¶18

Allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into a relationship with the victim and committed sexual assault and rape on her on two specific occasions, once in the year 2017and later, in the year 2021.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that going by the contents of the First Information Statement, the petitioner and the victim were studying together and were in a relationship. It is submitted that on the date of the alleged incident in the year 2017, both the petitioner and the victim girl were juveniles. It is submitted that in respect of the second incident in the year 2021, both the petitioner and the victim girl had attained the age of majority and any relationship between them was purely

¶20

BAIL APPL. NO. 88 OF 2022 3

¶21

consensual. It is submitted that even in the First Information statement, the victim girl has clearly stated that she had gone along with the petitioner voluntarily.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. It is submitted that this Court by order dated 19.01.2022 had granted an interim bail to the petitioner considering the submission that there is a possibility that the petitioner and the victim girl might get married to each other. It is presently reported that the parents of the victim are not interested in the victim marrying the petitioner. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and he is not entitled to be released on bail. It is also submitted that the medical examination of the victim supports the allegations made against the petitioner.

¶23

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner is aged only 21 years and considering the fact that he was in custody from 25.12.2021 till 20.01.2022 and also considering the fact that his continued detention may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation and also taking note of the admitted relationship between the parties, I am of the view that the

¶24

BAIL APPL. NO. 88 OF 2022 4

¶25

petitioner can be released on bail, subject to strict conditions. Accordingly, this application for bail is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) The 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;

¶27

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No. 428/2021 of Mankada Police station on every Saturday at 11 am until filing of final report;

¶28

(iii) The petitioners shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the victim or any witness in Crime No.428/2021 of Mankada. police station;

¶29

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court. If the petitioner does not have a passport, he shall execute an affidavit to that effect and file the same before the said court within seven days of release on bail;

¶30

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

¶31

BAIL APPL. NO. 88 OF 2022 5

¶32

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No..428/2021 of Mankada police station may file an application before the jurisdictional court, for cancellation of bail.

¶33

SD/-

¶34

GOPINATH P.
JUDGE

¶35

ajt

Muhammed Sahail N K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Sahail N K 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

Xxxxx Vs State of Kerala

Manu.K., Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Sumesh, Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep @ Kuttan Vs State of Kerala