Allowed

Abdul Hameed.U v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2023Bail Appl./1075/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by an accused charged with rape and related offences under the IPC. The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of evidence connecting the applicant justified release on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties of like amount, subject to conditions to cooperate with investigation and not leave Kerala

Abdul Hameed.U Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 1075 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

ABDUL HAMEED.U AGED 40 YEARS

¶8

S/O.ISMAIL, R/AT. UKKAMBATTI HOUSE, PANALAM, CHEROOR POST, CHENGALA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRIC, PIN - 671542 BY ADVS. T.B.SHAJIMON GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

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

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SRI.V.S.SREEJITH PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A.No.1075 of 2023

¶15

: 2 : -

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Dated this 8^th March, 2023

¶18

This application is filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail.

¶19

The applicant is the accused No.1 in Crime No.171/2022 of Kasargod Vanitha Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 376, 370 A (2), 376 D, 109 of IPC.

¶20

The prosecution case, in short, is that one day in November 2022, the 3^rd accused brought the victim from Patla to Jasmin Cottage, Madhur village, in his car and the applicant and the 2^nd accused committed rape on her in the said cottage and there by committed the offence.

¶21

I have heard Sri.T.B.Shajimon, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.V.S.Sreejith, the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

¶22

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The counsel further submitted that no materials are on record to connect the applicant with the alleged crime;

¶23

B.A.No.1075 of 2023

¶24

: 3 : -

¶25

hence, he is entitled to get bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the applicant, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage.

¶26

The applicant was remanded to judicial custody on 22.12.2022 and the investigation of the case is over. There was

¶27

one month delay in lodging the FIR. Even according to the version of the victim, she went voluntarily to the Jasmin Cottage mentioned above along with accused No.3. For all these reasons, I do not find any reason to hold that the continued detention of the applicant is required for any purpose. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: -

¶29

(i) The applicant shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate/Court.

¶30

(ii) The applicant shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

¶31

B.A.No.1075 of 2023

¶32

: 4 : -

¶33

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. on every Saturday until further orders. He shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

¶34

(iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence of a like nature while on bail.

¶35

(v) The applicant shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

¶36

(vi) The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

¶37

(vii) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating

¶38

the bail conditions shall be filed at the jurisdictional court.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE.

¶41

Abdul Hameed.U v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hameed.U 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

Pradeesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Reji K Vs State of Kerala

Biju, S/O.Rappai, Vs the State of Kerala

Meethin Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Aziz, Vs State of Kerala

Usman B. M Vs State of Kerala