High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-08-05Bail granted to both applicants: regular bail f...

MAJEED v. STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:BA Nos. 5135 & 5139 of 2013

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. Bhavadasan
Judgment Date: 2013-08-05
Court Decision / Holding: The petitions are allowed. The first accused, Majeed, is to be released on regular bail on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two solvent sureties, and the court must verify the identity of the sureties and the veracity of tax receipts. The first accused shall report to the investigating officer every Wednesday between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. until further orders and shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The second accused shall surrender before the investigating officer by 12.08.2013, after which she shall be produced before the JFCM court, which on an application for bail shall release her on bail on a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two solvent sureties. The second accused shall report to the investigating officer every Friday between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. until further orders and shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
Final Disposition: Bail granted to both applicants: regular bail for the first accused and post-surrender bail for the second accused, with reporting obligations, identity verification of sureties, and non-tampering/witness protection conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Majeed (1st accused)
Second accused (unnamed)

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.)
• M.A. Sheeba
• Vipin Narayan

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri Roy Thomas

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court bail judgment concerns Bail Applications No. 5135/2013 and 5139/2013 arising from Crime No. 620/2013 of Shornur Police Station, Palakkad. The first accused, Majeed, and the second accused faced charges under IPC Sections 376 (rape), 107 (abetment), and 313 (causing miscarriage) and under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Sections 5(n) and 6). The applications sought regular bail for the first accused and anticipatory bail for the second. The prosecution contends that the allegations involve serious offences against a minor and that releasing the accused could prejudice the investigation and prosecution, which are ongoing. The petitioners urge that the allegations are false and motivated by family disputes: the victim is the granddaughter of the second accused; the father is abroad; the mother and father are not in good terms; they claim to have helped in arranging an abortion to preserve family honour. They argue the first accused has been in custody since 14.06.2013 and that the second accused’s role is passive. The Public Prosecutor counters that the court must be guided by the complainant’s allegations at this stage and that the bail should be refused or restricted if necessary. The court, while acknowledging the seriousness, grants bail to the first accused with conditions and, after surrender, bail to the second accused with similar conditions, directing reporting and non-tampering obligations.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sections 376, 107, 313 IPCSections 5(n) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that the accusations are false and motivated by family discord. They state that the victim is the granddaughter of the second accused and that the victim’s father is abroad, while the mother and father are not on good terms, creating a motive to file a complaint. They claim the pregnancy arose from a relationship with a boy named Shameer, and that the abortion was arranged to protect the family’s honour. They allege that the first accused and his family reside in the same house, making it implausible that the wife would be unaware of the acts; they emphasise that the accused have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated. They request regular bail for the first accused and anticipatory bail for the second, arguing that detention would impede preparation of their defence and that investigation is ongoing but no conclusive evidence exists at this stage.

Contentions of Respondents

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, submits that the case involves serious acts of sexual abuse of a minor and requires careful scrutiny. The complainant’s version should be given credence at this stage, and the investigation is progressing. Release on bail may adversely affect the prosecution’s case and the witnesses. While there may be improbabilities in the complaint, the court should not release the accused until the case is investigated to protect the child’s welfare and ensure accountability.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against MAJEED v. STATE OF KERALA and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN** **MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/14TH SRAVANA, 1935** ## **Bail Appl..No. 5135 of 2013 ()** **----------------------------------------CRIME NO. 620/2013 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ...........** ## **APPLICANT/1ST ACCUSED :** **----------------------------------------** **MAJEED, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. ABDULLA, CHOLAYIL VEEDU, VANIYAMKULAM OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SMT.M.A.SHEEBA SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :** **----------------------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ROY THOMAS** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-08-2013, ALONG WITH BA. NO.5139 OF 2013 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **tss** ## **P. BHAVADASAN, J.** ...................................................... B.A.Nos.5135 & 5139 of 2013 ...................................................... Dated this the 5[th] day of August, 2013 ## **O R D E R** Petitioner in B.A.No.5135/2013 is the first accused and petitioner in B.A.No.5139/2013 is the second accused in Crime No.620/2013 of Shornur Police Station, who have committed the offences punishable under Sections 376,107,313 of IPC and Sections 5(n) and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. B.A.No.5135/2013 is for regular bail while B.A.No.5139/2013 is for anticipatory bail. 3. The allegation is that the first accused sexually abused the daughter of the defacto complainant, as a result of which she became pregnant and an abortion was carried out. 4. Petitioners would say that the allegations are falsely made with ulterior motives. The victim in this case is the grand daughter of the petitioner in B.A.No.5139/2013 and petitioner in B.A.No.5135/2013 is her paternal uncle. The father of the victim is working in abroad and the mother is in 2 B.A.Nos.5135 & 5139 2013 Bombay. According to the petitioners, the victim had developed fancy towards a boy named Shameer and in that relation, she became pregnant. When this brought to the notice of her father, he asked the petitioners to do something to keep the honour of the family. Petitioners would say that in order to help the father of the victim, they arranged for abortion. According to the petitioners, the matter was brought to the notice of the mother of the victim and she came down and filed a private complaint against first and second accused. The petitioners would say that the mother and father of the victim are not in good terms and in order to wreck vengeance, the present complaint has been made by the mother of the victim. The petitioners would say that they have not committed any offence and they are falsely implicated in the offence. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor very vehemently opposed these petitions. It was pointed out by him that it is a case where the child has been abused by her paternal uncle and the allegations are of serious nature. As of now, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is nothing to disbelieve the version given by the defacto complainant and the investigation is only progressing. Release of the first accused B.A.Nos.5135 & 5139 2013 3 on bail and granting anticipatory bail to the second accused may adversely affect the prosecution case. 6. It is true that as of now this Court is to be guided by the allegations in the complaint. Any inherent improbabilities in the complaint also have to be taken note of. The alleged act of rape by the first accused is said to have been committed on 11.11.2012. Abortion was took place in April, 2013. The mother of the victim coming to know of the same had come to the native place and filed a complaint. The C.D was made available for perusal. It is surprising to note that no where in the complaint it is stated that the incident was informed to the father of the victim and he had knowledge of the filing of the complaint. It is also seen from the complaint that the victim had complained to the defacto complainant that she was being sexually harassed by the first accused for the last two years. However, the complainant does not say that her daughter had informed her about the same. 7. Even though it may not be possible at this juncture to doubt the complainant's version. It is significant to notice that the first accused and his family reside in the same house. It is difficult to believe that the first accused's wife would not B.A.Nos.5135 & 5139 2013 4 have known about the incident. the Tase put forward by the petitioners is that the first accused has been in custody from 14.6.2013 and the second accused is only alleged to have assisted the acts of the first accused. Her role is only limited. Whatever that be, as the first accused is in judicial custody since 14.6.2013 and the role of the second accused is one of passive nature, continued custody of the first accused is unnecessary and the second accused is entitled to relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 8. In the result, these petitions are allowed as follows: i. The first accused shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned court. ii. The court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by them before granting bail to the first accused. iii. The first accused shall report before the investigating officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders. iv. The first accused shall not tamper or attempt to B.A.Nos.5135 & 5139 2013 5 tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses. v. If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the first accused shall stand cancelled and the concerned Magistrate on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law. 9. B.A.No.5139/2013 is allowed as follows: i. The second accused shall surrender before the investigating officer on or before 12.08.2013, who after interrogation shall produce the second accused before the JFCM court concerned, which court on application for bail filed by the second accused shall release her on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the JFCM concerned. ii. The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by them before granting bail to the second accused. iii. The second accused shallreport before the investigating officer on every Friday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders. B.A.Nos.5135 & 5139 2013 6 iv. The second accused shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses. **P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.** cl B.A.Nos.5135 & 5139 2013 7