Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Shafeek vs State Of Kerala on 9 October, 2019

Author: Alexander Thomas

Bench: Alexander Thomas

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

   WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 17TH ASWINA, 1941

                      Bail Appl..No.7194 OF 2019

   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 3208/2019 OF I ADDITIONAL
                     SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD

      CRIME NO.296/2019 OF NENMARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD



PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

             SHAFEEK
             AGED 19 YEARS
             S/O. SIDDIQUE, KAYARADI,
             VADKKEPARAMBU,
             NENMARA

             BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN


RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

             STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF PUBLIC
             NENMARA POLICE STATION
             THROUGH THE PUBIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
             ERNAKULAM-682 031


             SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION           ON
09.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl..No.7194 OF 2019

                                        2




                      ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
                 ===========================
                           B.A.No.7194 of 2019
                  ===========================
                     Dated this the 09th day of October, 2019

                                    ORDER

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.296/2019 of Nenmara Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.376(AB), 376(2)(f) and 506 of the IPC and Sec.3(a) read with Sec.4, Sec.5(m) and (n) read with Sec.6 and Sec.11(iv) read with Sec.12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, on the basis of the FI Statement given by the minor victim girl aged 11 years on 01.08.2019 about 8.20 p.m. in respect of the alleged incidents occurred on a day in December, 2017. It appears that the petitioner aged 19 years is the son of the brother of the paternal grandmother of the minor victim girl (i.e., the petitioner herein and the girl's father are first cousins).

2. The prosecution case is that, the accused herein being a close relative of the minor victim girl had access to her house and that on a day in December, 2017, he had offered toffees to the minor victim girl and had Bail Appl..No.7194 OF 2019 3 taken her to the bedroom of her house and there he had forceful sexual intercourse on her and thereby he has committed the abovesaid offences.

3. Sri.L.Rajesh Narayan Iyer, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner/accused would urge that the prosecution allegations are raised against his party are false and baseless and further that the FI Statement and the crime has been lodged as late as on 01.08.2019, in respect of the alleged incident, which has happened as early as in December, 2017 and further that the petitioner has already suffered detention for the last 70 days and his further detention may not be necessary and he may be released on regular bail subject to any stringent conditions.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has seriously opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has stated that this Court as per Annexure-A4 order dated 02.09.2019 in B.A.No.6221/2019 has already dismissed the regular bail application filed by the petitioner/accused in respect of the very same crime on a previous occasion and that the investigation has not been completed and that there are no material changes in the circumstances compared to the scenario that revealed at the time of Annexure-A4 order to take a different view and that as the petitioner is a very close relative of the victim girl aged 11 years, there is every possibility of the petitioner intimidating or influencing the witnesses, Bail Appl..No.7194 OF 2019 4 more particularly, the minor victim girl and her family members, if he is let out on bail.

5. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is constrained to take the view that the prosecution allegations disclosed against the petitioner are quite grave and serious and as the investigation has not been completed, this Court is not in a position to hold that the abovesaid apprehension raised by the prosecution, is to be brushed aside. However, the Investigating Agency will ensure that all reasonable measures are taken to ensure that the investigation in relation to this case is completed without any further delay.

Accordingly, the application fails and the same will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE vgd