Allowed

Shaheer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Sept 2023Bail Appl./5019/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed bail to the petitioner accused of rape under Section 376 (2) (n) IPC, subject to stringent conditions including appearance before the investigating officer on three consecutive days and non-interference with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, appearance before investigating officer for three days, non-interference with investigation, and no involvement in other cri

Shaheer Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 21ST BHADRA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 5019 OF 2023

¶6

Crime No.14/2023 of Pudoor Police Station, Palakkad

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMC 2069/2023 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, PALAKKAD / IV ADDITIONAL MACT,

¶8

PALAKKAD

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

SHAHEER,AGED 37 YEARS,S/O. MUHAMMED, KANJICHALIL HOUSE, CHOORIYODU, THACHAMPARA P.O, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678593

¶11

BY ADV K.ABOOBACKER SIDHEEQUE

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682031

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI. NOUSHAD K A (SR PP)

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A. No.5019/2023

-2-

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.14/2023 of Pudoor Police Station in Palakkad District alleging commission of offence under Section 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that during the period from 0902-2023 to 02-05-2023 the petitioner entered into sexual relationship with the de facto complainant on the false pretext of marriage.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the allegations cannot be taken at face value as both petitioner and de facto complainant were in a subsisting marital relationship. It is submitted that the fact that the petitioner is having a subsisting marriage was well known to the de facto complainant and therefore it cannot be said that there was a promise to marry. It is submitted that even going by the first information statement given by the de facto complainant she had raised similar allegations against other persons also and those cases were settled after accepting money from the accused in those cases. It is alleged that the victim is aged 43.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. He submits that the first information statement of the victim clearly suggests that the offence was committed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the investigation is progressing and grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage will not be conducive to the completion of the investigation in a fair manner. To a pointed question from this court the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation conducted

¶24

B.A. No.5019/2023

¶25

-3-

¶26

thus far revealed that certain earlier cases instituted at the instance of the de facto complainant had ended in acquittal after the victim turned hostile. Two cases registered in the years 2013 and 2014 are brought to the notice of this court wherein a prosecution alleging commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC and one other case alleging commission of offence under Section 354 B of IPC had ended in acquittal in view of the fact that the de facto complainant turned hostile.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail subject to stringent conditions. In order to ensure that the investigation of the case take place in a proper manner the petitioner can be asked to appear before the investigating officer on three consecutive days and thereafter whenever called upon to do so. While it may not be proper for this court to take a view regarding the statements made by the de facto complainant in the first information statement regarding the settlement of earlier cases filed by her, it is certainly a factor which can be taken note of while considering the bail application of the petitioner. Therefore this bail application is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.14/2023 of Pudoor Police Station, Palakkad, subject to the following conditions:-

¶28

(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;

¶29

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.14/2023 of Pudoor Police Station, Palakkad at 11 a.m on 19-09-2023,

¶30

B.A. No.5019/2023

¶31

-4-

¶32

20-09-2023 and 21-09-2023 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so;

¶33

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate the de facto complaint or any witness in Crime No.14/2023 of Pudoor Police Station in Palakkad;

¶34

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

¶35

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.14/2023 of Pudoor Police Station in Palakkad District may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶36

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

AMG

B.A. No.5019/2023

-5-

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5019/2023

¶41

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶42

Annexure-A1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2023 IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS CASE NO. 2069/2023 OF THE COURT OF VTH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, PALAKKAD DIVISION.

Shaheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaheer 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

Zeenath D.v.P, Vs Union of India

Anu P. Satheesan Vs State of Kerala

T.S. Sivanandan Vs the District Collector

Shabeel Vs Harshina

Shanfer A.P Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Sajeev Vs Aleena M