Ismail., vs State of Kerala,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided May 25, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1358916

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1358916
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Ziyad Rahman a.a.
Decided On: May 25, 2023
Case Number: Bail Appl./3651/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ismail.,

Respondent

State of Kerala,

Excerpt

.....no. petitioner are punishable under sections 341, 323, 376(2) (n), 506(i), 354a and 354b of the indian penal code.3. the prosecution case is that, during the period frommay 2022 to 17.04.2023, the accused had forceful sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. it is also alleged that, on 16.04.2023 at about 2.00 hours, while the petitioner was at the house of the accused at marathakkara, the accused forcibly administered a narcotic drug named mdma to her. it is also alleged that, on one occasion, the petitioner criminally intimidated her by stating that if she was not cooperating with his friends, he would inject mdma and thereupon, the defacto complainant attempted to flee fromthe scene of occurrence. the petitioner followed her and attempted to assault her. the matter was reported to police in such circumstances, and the crime was registered accordingly. as part of the investigation the petitioner was arrested on 20.04.2023, and since then he has been under judicial detention.4. heard, sri. sam isaac pothiyil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and smt. seetha s, the learned public prosecutor, appearing for the state.5. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. according to him, thepetitioner was falsely implicated in the said case. it is further pointed out that, as the petitioner has been in custody since 20.04.2023, there is no fruitful purpose in continuing the incarceration of the petitioner.6. on the other hand, the learned public prosecutor wouldoppose the aforesaid contentions. it is pointed out that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, and the matter is under investigation. it is further pointed out that, in case the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, in all probabilities, he is likely to influence the witnesses.7. i have gone through the records and heard thecontentions raised from both sides. on.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 3651 OF 2023 (CRIME NO 415 OF 2023 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ISMAIL., AGED 29 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, THERUVIL HOUSE KONTHUKUNNU DESOM, VADAKKUMKARA VILLEGE, VELLANGALLUR THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680662 BY ADVS. SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL S.SURAJA VIPIN M.V. MUHAMMED SUHAIR C.A ABEY GEORGE HARISH V.S. RAMU SUBHASH SWAMINATHAN K.S. ANANTHAKRISHNAN R. RESPONDENT/STATE: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, OLLUR POLICE STATION, THIRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680306 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OTHER PRESENT: ADV SEETHA S -PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

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

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. petitioner are punishable under Sections 341, 323, 376(2) (n), 506(i), 354A and 354B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that, during the period from

May 2022 to 17.04.2023, the accused had forceful sexual intercourse with the defacto complainant and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. It is also alleged that, on 16.04.2023 at about 2.00 hours, while the petitioner was at the house of the accused at Marathakkara, the accused forcibly administered a narcotic drug named MDMA to her. It is also alleged that, on one occasion, the petitioner criminally intimidated her by stating that if she was not cooperating with his friends, he would inject MDMA and thereupon, the defacto complainant attempted to flee from

the scene of occurrence. The petitioner followed her and attempted to assault her. The matter was reported to police in such circumstances, and the crime was registered accordingly. As part of the investigation the petitioner was arrested on 20.04.2023, and since then he has been under judicial detention.

4. Heard, Sri. Sam Isaac Pothiyil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations. According to him, the

petitioner was falsely implicated in the said case. It is further pointed out that, as the petitioner has been in custody since 20.04.2023, there is no fruitful purpose in continuing the incarceration of the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would

oppose the aforesaid contentions. It is pointed out that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, and the matter is under investigation. It is further pointed out that, in case the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, in all probabilities, he is likely to influence the witnesses.

7. I have gone through the records and heard the

contentions raised from both sides. On going through the statement given by the defacto complainant, it is evident that the specific allegations of forceful sexual assault are raised against the petitioner. More importantly, the aforesaid allegations include forcing the defacto complainant to consume the narcotic drugs. The statement of the defacto complainant also contains the allegation that the petitioner threatened her by insisting on having sexual intercourse with his friends as well.

After going through the entire materials placed on record, I am of the view that, the release of the petitioner at this stage may not be proper. The investigation is now in progress, and as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the chances of influencing and intimidating the witnesses cannot be ruled out. In such circumstances, I do not find any justification in allowing this application at this juncture, and accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A JUDGE rpk APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3651/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.04.2023 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, THRISSUR DISTRICT IN CRL, M.P. NO.3125/2023 IS PRODUCED

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2023 Same Parties Ismail., vs State of Kerala, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Ziyad Rahman a.a.