Muhammed Shareef K. v. The State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/22ND MAGHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 13 of 2015 () ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 1068/2014 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM ---------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
--------------------------------- MUHAMMED SHAREEF K., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MOYINKUTTY VALIYARAKKAL KURIKKADAN PUTHUPPADAM HOUSE, AIKKARAPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
-------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED :
2. RASHEEDA, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KOYA, KALATHINGAL HOUSE, KADALUNDI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 11/2/2015 IN CRL.M.A. 1084/2015 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.
ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
============================ ============================= Dated this the 11th day of February, 2015
O R D E R
Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2.
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1068 of 2014 of the Kondotty Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3.
The defacto complainant woman was deserted by her husband and thereafter they effected a divorce through an agreement. It is alleged that thereafter, the defacto complainant fell in love with the petitioner, who is one of her neighbours. It is also alleged that on a promise of marriage, he subjected her to sexual intercourse on several occasions and the said relationship continued. Every now and then, assurance was given by the petitioner that he would marry her. With the said assurance, he obtained an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and 8 sovereigns of gold ornaments also from the defacto complainant. Thereafter, he has retracted from his promise and has not returned the amount or gold
ornaments also.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. On going through the contents of the CD and on hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that this is not a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the continued investigation of this case. The allegations against the petitioner are very grave and serious. Considering all the above, I am of the view that this is not a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for an opportunity to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation. In the result, this bail application is dismissed. At the same time, if so advised, the petitioner may surrender before
the investigating officer within ten days from today and in such case, the investigating officer can interrogate the petitioner, effect recovery if any, and conduct the investigation and produce the petitioner without delay before the concerned Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, where the petitioner can move for bail. In such case, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders, preferably on the same day itself, provided advance notice on such application has been given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor also.
Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA JUDGE DSV/11/2/15 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge