Kerala High Court
Rahim Abdul Gafoor vs State Of Kerala on 27 June, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
B.A.No.5574 of 2025 1
2025:KER:46930
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 5574 OF 2025
CRIME NO.321/2025 OF Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RAHIM ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL
GAFOOR THAZHATHE CHALIL HOUSE, THIRUVATHRA P.O.,
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680516
BY ADV SMT.ANUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
* 2 SRUTHI BABU V., AGED 33 YEARS, D/O BABU V.B,
RESIDING AT VEDERIYATIL HOUSE, ANNAKARA DESAM,
CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680508
* [ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
21/05/2025 IN CRL.MA.1/2025]
BY ADVS.SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.5574 of 2025 2
2025:KER:46930
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
......................................................
B.A. No.5574 of 2025
...................................................
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.321 of 2025 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 351(2), 308(2), 309(4), 131 and 332 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to the prosecution, on 30.10.2024, the accused had trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and took away an Innova Car bearing registration No.KL-23-E-8063, after assaulting the de facto complainant and forcibly took the key from her, thereby committing the offences alleged.
4. Heard Smt.Anupama Subramanian, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.T.Sheejish, the learned Counsel for the de B.A.No.5574 of 2025 3 2025:KER:46930 facto complainant as well as Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was also submitted that there were financial transactions between the petitioner and the husband of the de facto complainant and since the husband of the de facto complainant was unable to repay the money owed to the petitioner, the vehicle was handed over to him as a settlement. It was further submitted that, the de facto complainant filed a complaint belatedly, raising false allegations. According to the learned Counsel, petitioner is willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court while granting him bail.
6. Sri.P.T.Sheejish, the learned Counsel for the de facto complainant, on the other hand, submitted that two vehicles, one belonging to the de facto complainant and the other to her friend, were forcibly taken away by the accused. Despite repeated complaints, no action has been taken by the Police, which, B.A.No.5574 of 2025 4 2025:KER:46930 according to the Counsel, indicates the possible influence or clout exercised by the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner would seriously prejudice the investigation. It was also pointed out that since the vehicles have to be recovered, custodial interrogation is necessary and hence the bail application ought to be dismissed.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that petitioner has admitted the fact that the vehicle is in his possession and that the complaint was filed by the de facto complainant months after the alleged incident and also that some disputes are pending between the petitioner and the husband of the de facto complainant and since the dispute arose because of the transactions between them, a complaint has been filed. It was also submitted that the vehicle has not yet been recovered and that the investigation can be completed only after petitioner is interrogated.
8. On a consideration of the rival contentions, it is noticed that though the incident of taking away the vehicles is alleged to B.A.No.5574 of 2025 5 2025:KER:46930 have occurred on 30.10.2024, no complaint was filed by the de facto complainant until 07.01.2025, as evidenced by the acknowledgment produced as Annexure R2(f). Though the learned Counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that on 26.11.2024, as per Annexure R2(a), the complaint was filed, there is nothing to indicate that the said complaint was received by the Police.
9. Notwithstanding the above mentioned delay in complaining, since the de facto complainant has raised allegations regarding theft of her vehicle, I am of the view that the Investigating Officer must complete the investigation without undue delay and for that purpose limited custody can be granted, especially since he had offered to surrender the vehicle before the Investigating Officer.
10. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, [(2020) 5 SCC 1], it was held that, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and B.A.No.5574 of 2025 6 2025:KER:46930 gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.
11. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, this Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious in nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Further, having regard to the nature of the offence and the severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail, subject to conditions of limited custody, for the purpose of completing the investigation.
Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer, on 07.07.2025 from 10a.m. to 5 p.m., and shall subject himself to interrogation, which period is shall be treated as being custody.B.A.No.5574 of 2025 7
2025:KER:46930
(b) Petitioner shall also produce the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-23-E-8063 before the Investigating Officer.
(c) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.
(d) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.
(e) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
(f) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.
(g) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions or if any B.A.No.5574 of 2025 8 2025:KER:46930 modification or deletion of the conditions are required, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider such applications, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE sp/27/06/2025 B.A.No.5574 of 2025 9 2025:KER:46930 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 5574/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 321 OF 2025 REGISTERED BY THE PAVARATTY POLICE STATION Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD ON 26.11.2024 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R2(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHAVAKAD AGAINST THE ABOVE PETITIONER DATED 21.11.2024 Annexure R2(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHAVAKAD POLICE STATION AGAINST THE ABOVE PETITIONER DATED 26.11.2024 Annexure R2(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S HUSBAND, INJURED BY THE ABOVE PETITIONER Annexure R2(d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT RECORDS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S HUSBAND DATED 06.01.2025 Annexure R2(e) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S HUSBAND BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF DATED 07.01.2025 Annexure R2(f) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure R2(g) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08.01.2025 B.A.No.5574 of 2025 10 2025:KER:46930 Annexure R2(h) THE TRUE COPY OF THE R COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SHO PAVARATTY POLICE STATION DATED 10/12/2024 Annexure R2(i) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF DATED 08.01.2025 Annexure R2(J) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE COMPLAINT REGISTERED BY THE DISRICT POLICE CHIEF Annexure R2(K) THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.
1194/2025 DATED 13.01.2025
Annexure R2(l) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY UNDER RTI ACT
DATED 13.02.2025, ALONG WITH THE
COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE KOPPAM POLICE STATION DATED 26.11.2024 Annexure R2(m) THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT, GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER SUB INSPECTOR PAVARATTY ON 24.02.2025 Annexure R2(n) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE SHO PAVARATTY BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT CHAVAKKAD IN CMP NO. 911/2025 DATED 07.03.2025 Annexure R2(o) THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
376/2025 FILED BY THE CHAVAKKAD POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER DATED 16.04.2025 Annexure R2(p) THE TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE OF HUSBAND OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.01.2025