Ismail M.C. v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/17TH MAGHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 8705 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 598/2014 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT ---------------------- PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED :
------------------------------------------ ISMAIL M.C.,AGED 40 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI, KUSHAL NAGAR, KANHANGAD KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SRI.K.V.SREEVINAYAKAN SRI.K.M.HASHIR SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
REPRESENTING S.H.O., BEKAL POLICE STATION KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn
B.KEMAL PASHA, J.
============================ B.A. No. 8705 of 2014 ============================= Dated this the 6th day of February, 2015
O R D E R
Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2.
Petitioner is the 6th accused in Crime No.598 of 2014 of the Hosdurg Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 317, 370(5), 372 and 373 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.
It is alleged that one day during the month of June 2012, the 1st accused with the knowledge and consent of his wife, who is the 7th accused, sold their 9 months old daughter to the 5th accused, who is a practicing Lawyer at Mangalapuram, for an amount of ₹1,50,000/-. The petitioner along with A2, A3 and A4 acted as middlemen in the transaction and obtained amounts ranging from ₹10,000/- to ₹20,000/- as commission. After that, on 01.02.2013 again the 1st accused with the knowledge and consent of the 7th
accused, sold their 8 months old son to the 5th accused for an amount of ₹1,75,000/- with the aid of the 2nd accused for which the 2nd accused received an amount of ₹20,000/- as commission.
4.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.
5.
None of the offences mentioned above can be attracted in the cases. It seems that even though there was strong recommendation from the Law Commission of India for incorporating an offence to curb the menace of this kind, the recommendation was not accepted and no steps have been taken for incorporating any such offences in the IPC or in any other law. In the absence of any penal provisions, I am of the view that the only course open to this Court at present is to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge
the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for ₹25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 09.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. on all Fridays and Tuesdays commencing from 13.02.2015 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.
(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.
It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail. Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA JUDGE DSV/6/2/15 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge