High CourtsSingle Bench

Jasic Ali vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 3 January 2023 · Citation: (2023) 01 KL CK 0003

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 109, 354A(2), 354D, 363 · Kerala Police Act, 2011 — Section 57 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 7, 8, 11(iv), 11(vi), 12, 16, 17 · Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 9955 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 409 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.710/2022 of Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 57 of Kerala Police Act, 2011 initially and then altered into Sections 354A(2), 354D, 109, 363 r/w Section 34 of Indian penal Code, 1860 apart from Section 8 r/w Section 7, Section 12 r/w Section 11(iv)(vi), Section 17 r/w Section 16 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(w) & 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3.

According to the prosecution, on 30.10.2022, the accused kidnapped minor victim aged 17 years in a car without the consent of her guardian and took her to a place called Kokkalloor and thereby committed the offences alleged

4.

Smt.T.T.Shaniba, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution allegations are false and that the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that the petitioners were arrested on 02.11.2022 and they have been in custody since then.

5.

Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the grant of bail and submitted that the prosecution allegations are serious and that releasing the petitioner on bail would cause prejudice to the investigation.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions.

7.

Having regard to the nature of allegations and also the period of detention already undergone by the petitioners, I am of the view that petitioners ought to be released on bail. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioners shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(c) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence or contact the victim or her family members.

(d) Petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while they are on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.