Kerala High Court
Iysha Mol vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2016
Author: Mary Joseph
Bench: Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2016/17TH ASHADHA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 4854 of 2016 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 1230/2016 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION.
....
PETITIONER(S):
----------------------
1. IYSHA MOL, W/O. MOHAMMED ALI,
AGED 52 YEARS, CHIRAKKEKUDIYIL HOUSE,
ARAYANKALA, EAST CHALAKKUDY,
THRISSUR, KERALA, INDIA.
2. MANJITHA, W/O.LATE HUSSAIN,
AGED 40 YEARS, SAMAHURI P.O.,
NAGAON, ASSAM, INDIA.
BY ADV. SMT.I.VINAYAKUMARI.
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI -31.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
EAST CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION,
THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 015.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.REJI JOSEPH.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
rs.
MARY JOSEPH, J.
-------------------------------
B.A No. 4854 of 2016
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2016
ORDER
The petitioners are accused in Crime No.1230/2016 of East Chalakkudy Police Station. They have been implicated as accused in a Crime registered by the East Chalakkudy Police Station for the offence under section 370(6) of IPC. The allegation against them was that they employed a girl child named Sulthana, aged 13 years for doing the house hold work. The crime in question was registered based on a secret information transpired to the respondent over telephone that a girl child was employed in the house by the first petitioner. On their apprehension of arrest in the matter they seek for a direction to the 2nd respondent to release them on bail in the event of their arrest.
2. Heard Smt.Vinayakumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Reji Joseph, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The case diary pertaining to the crime in question, made available to me was also perused. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first B.A No. 4854 of 2016 2 petitioner had only granted shelter to a hapless minor girl child on the request of her mother, who is the 2nd petitioner and there is no likelihood of the offence alleged to be attracted based on the allegations. According to her, the girl child has never been used for doing the house hold work as alleged by the prosecution. On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the minor girl child was engaged in doing house hold work at the time when the 2nd respondent visited the house of the first petitioner.
3. I have gone through the case diary and found that the investigation of the case is almost completed. Only the arrest of the petitioners and obtainment of the possession certificate and the sketch of the house wherein the child was accommodated and employed are remaining. The presence of the petitioners in custody is not necessary for procuring the possession certificate. In the circumstances, there is no harm in granting the relief of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
In the result, the bail application is allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to release the petitioners on bail in B.A No. 4854 of 2016 3 the event of their arrest on execution of bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) by each of them with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and subject to conditions as herein below.
1. The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer in between 9 a.m and 11 a.m on all Mondays commencing from 25.7.2016 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in the case in question, whichever is earlier.
2. The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required.
3. The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
4. The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.
5. The petitioners shall not involve in any offence while on bail.
In case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, the respondent is at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE sab //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE