Kerala High Court
Shameena.E.A vs State Of Kerala on 3 April, 2019
Author: B.Sudheendra Kumar
Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1941
Bail Appl..No. 2290 of 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 795/2019 of JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,THAMARASSERY
CRIME NO. 53/2019 OF Thiruvambadi Police Station , Kozhikode
PETITIONER/S:
SHAMEENA.E.A
AGED 27 YEARS
D/O.ABDUL KAREEM, EDAVAZHIKKAL HOUSE,
VALLIVATAM.P.O, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR
BY ADVS.
SRI.D.VIMAL DEV
SMT.SNEHAPRABHA
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, KOCHI-31
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 2290 of 2019
-2-
ORDER
The petitioner is the 3rd accused in crime No.53 of 2019 of Thiruvambadi Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 IPC.
2. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated as follows:-
On 27.01.2019 at about 3 p.m., the petitioner and the other accused demanded an amount of Rs.40,000/- from the de-facto complainant threatening that the nude photographs of the petitioner with the de-facto complainant were available with the accused and if the said amount was not paid, the said photographs would be shown to the public. Accordingly, the petitioner and the other accused extorted an amount of Rs.40,000/- from the de-facto complainant.Bail Appl..No. 2290 of 2019 -3-
Thereafter, the accused also demanded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the de-facto complainant, which the de-facto complainant declined to give. Thereafter, the petitioner went to the house of the de-facto complainant and informed his wife that the petitioner was having the nude photographs of the de-facto complainant.
2. The petitioner was arrested on 20/3/2019 and ever since she has been in custody.
3. Heard.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.
5. It has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is also an accused in another crime involving the offence under Section 395 IPC. The investigation is only progressing. Therefore, if the Bail Appl..No. 2290 of 2019 -4- petitioner is released on bail at this stage, that will adversely affect the progress of investigation. Since the petitioner is also involved in another grave offence of more or less the same nature, the chance for repeating similar offences cannot be ruled out at this stage. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
In the result, this application stands dismissed.
sd B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE.
dl/4.4