Allowed

Ummer Khan K, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2024Bail Appl./397/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed anticipatory bail applications filed by the father and mother of a 10-year-old victim. Though the offences involved rape and attempt to rape under IPC/POCSO were serious, bail was granted due to the eight-year delay in lodging the complaint and the victim's affidavit stating the allegations were based on a mistake of fact, coupled with her request to allow bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail conditioned on surrender for interrogation by 23.02.2024, execution of a bond for Rs.50,000 by each with two sureties, and abstinence from influencing witnesses.

Ummer Khan K, Vs State of Kerala — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 397 OF 2024

¶6

CRIME NO.28/2024 OF Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED

¶8

UMMER KHAN K,
AGED 80 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED KASIM, KANJIRAM VILA HOUSE, PALLIKKARA
PEROL VILLAGE, NILESWAR, KASARGOD, PIN - 671314

¶9

BY ADVS.
C.R.SIVAKUMAR
BINI KRISHNA
S.SOORYA GAYATHRY

¶10

RESPONDENTS

¶11

1STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶12

ADDL.R2XXXXXXXXXX

¶13

XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

¶14

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 15.02.2024
IN CRL.M.A NO.1/2024

¶15

BY ADV M.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SR.PP-SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG
WITH B.A. NO.571 OF 2024 ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

B.A. Nos.397 and 571 of 2024

¶20

¶21

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶24

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945

¶25

BAIL APPL. NO. 571 OF 2024

¶26

CRIME NO.28/2024 OF Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam
PETITIONER

¶27

SAINABA MYMOON,
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O.RAFIK M.M., RAYAMARAKKAR HOUSE, NEAR MODEL
ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THRIKKAKARA P.O.,
THRIKKAKARA NORTH (PART), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 682021
BY ADV K.S.PRAVEEN

¶28

RESPONDENT

¶29

1STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

¶30

ADDL.R3XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DATED
15.02.2024 IN CRL.M.A NO.1/2024
BY ADV M.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN

¶31

OTHER PRESENT:

¶32

PP-SRI.PRASANTH M.P

¶33

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ALONG WITH B.A. NO.397 OF 2024 ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

B.A. Nos.397 and 571 of 2024

¶35

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

These applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.28 of 2024 of Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam, registered under Sections 354, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 366-A of IPC and Sections 3(a), 4, 5l, 5m, 6, 7, 8, 9(i), 9(m), 10 and 21 of POCSO Act.

¶38

The prosecution allegation is that, the 1^st accused, who is an octogenarian, committed rape on the victim girl, who was aged only 10, and even after the victim intimating that fact to the 2^nd accused, who is her mother, she concealed it without informing the same to the authorities concerned. Moreover, the 2^nd accused offered the victim to the 1^st accused for committing sexual assault on her.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the defacto complainant/additional 2^nd respondent.

¶40

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications

¶41

B.A. Nos.397 and 571 of 2024

¶42

¶43

The additional 2^nd respondent, who is the victim filed affidavits in both the petitions, stating that the complaint was made on a mistake of fact based on some false information provided by a family friend. Now, she has realised that mistake and she has no objection in allowing the bail applications of accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶44

On instructions, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the victim girl was asserting the allegations against the accused in her 164 statement also, and the offences alleged are of serious nature. So the petitioners are not entitled for pre-arrest bail.

¶45

The alleged incident occurred while the victim was 10 years old. She lodged the complaint after eight years. Considering the delay in making the complaint and also considering the affidavits now filed by the victim girl, this Court is inclined to allow these applications on the following terms:-

¶46

(i) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 23.02.2024 and subject themselves for interrogation.

¶47

(ii) In the event of arrest the petitioners shall be

¶48

B.A. Nos.397 and 571 of 2024

¶49

¶50

released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) by each of them, with

¶51

two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

¶52

(iii) Thereafter, the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶53

(iv) Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the investigation.

¶54

(v) Petitioners shall not commit any offence, while on bail.

¶55

In case of violation of the bail conditions, the trial court is empowered to cancel the bail, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS

JUDGE

smm

Ummer Khan K, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummer Khan 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

Subramanian. K.K Vs State of Kerala

Amal Siby, Vs State of Kerala

Ismail Vs State of Kerala

Sumitha Sudarsan, Vs State of Kerala

Jaffar.T.K., Vs the Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Binu, Vs State of Kerala