Kerala High Court
Akbar vs State Of Kerala on 15 November, 2019
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1941
BAIL APPL.NO.8186 OF 2019
CRIME NO.96/2018 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
AKBAR, AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O. UMMER, SHAHIDA MANZIL, VETTIYATTIL HOUSE,
S.R.K NAGAR, OTTAPPALAM VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM 3 ,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM 679574.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PONNANI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679577.
SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-------------------------------------
B.A. No. 8186 of 2019
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2019
ORDER
The subject case in this Bail Application is Crime No.96/2018 of Changaramkulam Police Station, Malappuram, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.9 & 11(1) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and Secs.5(j)(ii) & 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, and Secs.197 & 198 of the IPC. Originally only two persons have been arrayed as accused. A1 is the mother of the lady victim and A2 is the husband of the lady victim.
2. The allegations raised in the above FIS given by the lady victim now aged 22 years is to the effect that, A1 (lady victim's mother) had compelled and forced the lady victim to marry A2 at the time when the victim had not completed the majority age of 18 years, etc.
3. Now it is submitted by both sides that A1 & A2 have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Court notified to deal with POCSO Cases, Manjeri, as per Anx.1 B.A. No. 8186 /2019 ..3..
order dated 20.6.2018. It appears that later, the police after investigation has additionally included the petitioner herein as A3 and another person as A4, who is said to have issued the certificate relating to the marriage of the victim. The new allegations raised as against the petitioner herein (A3) is that, the petitioner as the father of the lady victim had also compelled her and conducted her Nikah with A2, etc. The petitioner herein (A3) has been arrested in this case on 17.10.2019 and after his remand has been under detention since then.
4. After hearing both sides it is seen that in the original FIS no allegations has been made by the lady victim against the petitioner herein (A3) who is her father and the entire gravamen of allegations are directed against A1 (lady victim's mother) and A2 (lady victim's husband). A1 & A2 have been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court as per Anx.1 order as early as on 20.6.2018.
5. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner herein (A3) has been separated from A1 (lady victim's mother) quite some time ago, and long before the alleged marriage of victim with A2. Further that, the victim is said to have been B.A. No. 8186 /2019 ..4..
married before she had completed the age of 18 years, and a child has been born to her in the wedlock with A2 and later it appears that she has matrimonial disputes with A2 and it is after the lapse of 5 years from the alleged marriage that the victim has chosen to make this complaint and immediately after the completion of majority age of 18 years she has not taken any steps to annul her voidable marriage, etc. It is further pointed out that at the relevant time of conduct of Nikah and marriage, the lady victim was with the mother (A1) and not with the petitioner (A3).
6. After hearing both sides, this Court is not in a position to understand as to why the police has not issued the Sec.41A Cr.P.C. Notice to the petitioner so that he could have moved for anticipatory bail. Further this Court is not in a position to understand as to why the Sessions Court has rejected the plea of the petitioner for regular bail as per the impugned Anx.2 order dated 4.11.2019, when the Sessions Court had earlier granted bail to the prime accused persons (A1 & A2).
7. After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to take the view that the petitioner has made out a strong probable B.A. No. 8186 /2019 ..5..
case that his continued incarceration is not necessary and he could be released on regular bail subject to conditions. Accordingly it is ordered in the interest of justice that, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on his furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, both to the satisfaction of the competent court below concerned. However, the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions:-
i. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.
ii. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation. iii. The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when required in that connection.
If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider the plea for cancellation of bail if required, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG