Kerala High Court
Rafeeq K vs Unknown on 22 November, 2013
Author: P.Bhavadasan
Bench: P.Bhavadasan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
FRIDAY,THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1935
Bail Appl..No. 7802 of 2013 ()
------------------------------------------
CRIME NO. 503/2013 OF THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
......
PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED(S):
-------------------------------------------
RAFEEQ K.
S/O. ABDULRAHIMAN, AGED 34 YEARS,
PADINCHARE PULLISSERI, PALLIMETHAL, KODAMPUZHA
FEROKE COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 632.
BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT-STATE
-------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No.7802 of 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2013
O R D E R
The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.503 of 2013 of Tenhipalam Police Station who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 366, 376G and 392 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with the co-accused managed to have procure the presence of the victim and had taken her to a lodge where they ravished the lady. It is alleged that they deprived of her two gold bangles.
3. The petitioner would say that the allegations are totally false and cooked up for the purpose of the case. It is pointed out that the victim is a married woman and it is inconceivable that she would have been simply taken away by the petitioner and the co accused. The story on the very face of it, is incredible. It is also pointed out that the B.A. No.7802/2013 -2- petitioner has not committed any act which would constitute an offence. At any rate, according to the petitioner, he has been in custody from 27.09.2013 onwards and his continued custody is unnecessary.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor only pointed out that the investigation is going on.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, there seems to be some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the merits of the case. The records would indicate that the woman was married and the marriage was subsisting and she was at loggerheads with her husband. It is also difficult to believe that she would have been called for mediation talk at 9.30 p.m. And she would have readily gone along with the person who called her for a mediation. A deeper probe into the veracity of the allegations is not warranted at this point of time. Suffice to say that the B.A. No.7802/2013 -3- petitioner has been in custody from 27.09.2013 onwards and his continued custody appears to be unnecessary.
The petition is allowed as follows:
i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of ` 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
ii) The court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail.
iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 am and 10 am until further orders.
iv) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.
B.A. No.7802/2013 -4-
v) If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled and the court concerned may take such steps as are available to it in accordance with law.
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds