Mohammed Basheer Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1019846
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnAug-05-2013
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
AppellantMohammed Basheer
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
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. 4927 of 2013 ------------------------------- crime no. 894/2013 of tirur police station , malappuram district ..... applicant/accused : ------------------------------------ mohammed basheer, aged 4 years, s/o. moideenkutty, varikkottil house, ozhur p.o., tirur taluk, malappuram district. by sri.p.vijaya bhanu,senior advocate by adv.,sri.vipin narayan respondent/complainant : ----------------------------------------------- 1. state of kerala, represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam. *addl.r2 impleaded: r2. nusaira, aged 3 years, w/o.hussain, kuriyadi house, vettom, alissery, tirur, malappuram district ”121. (*addl.r2 is impleaded as per order dtd. 19/07/2013 in crl.m.a.no.5768/2013) r1 by public prosecutor sri.roy thomas r2 by adv. smt.sajitha.s.dharan this bail application having come up for admission on 05-08-2013, the court on the same day passed the following: kss p. bhavadasan, j....................................................... b.a.no.4927 of 2013 ...................................................... dated this the 5th day of august, 2013 order petitioner is the first accused in crime no.894/2013 of tirur police station, who is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under section 354 ipc. the allegation against him is that on 25.6.2013 between 11 a.m and 12.10 a.m while the petitioner was dressing the wound of the defacto complainant, the petitioner is alleged to have fondled the breasts of the defacto complainant. petitioner would say that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the case by vested interest. it is pointed out by the petitioner that immediately after the incident, an enquiry was conducted and annexure-b is the report thereof. it was thereafter that the crime was registered and the petitioner is sought to be arrested.2. the petitioner was directed to implead the defacto complainant, who was entered appearance through counsel and points out that the offence is of grave nature and anticipatory bail could not be granted.3. learned public prosecutor also opposed the bail application and it is pointed out that in view of the nature of the b.a.no.4927 o”2. offence, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.4. true, if the allegations are correct, the matter is very serious. but one cannot easily ignore annexure-b report. it is seen observed in annexure-b that the incident alleged to have taken place at a time when there are other staff members in the room. since no other patient or no staff members had given any supporting statement and since no complaint was received in the hospital itself, the issue was closed. on consideration of annexure- b report there may be some substance in what the petitioner says. it is difficult to believe in a crowded hospital an incident of the nature alleged could not happened without being noticed by anybody. whatever be the situation, it is felt that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. accordingly, the petition is allowed as follows: i. the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on or before 16.08.2013, who after interrogation shall produce the petitioner before the jfcm court concerned, which court on application for bail filed by the petitioner shall release him on bail on executing a bond for rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jfcm concerned. b.a.no.4927 o”3. 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 petitioner. iii. the petitioner shall report before the investigating officer on every sunday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders. iv. the petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses. v. if any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioner 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. p. bhavadasan, judge. cl
Judgment:

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. 4927 of 2013 ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 894/2013 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ..... APPLICANT/ACCUSED : ------------------------------------ MOHAMMED BASHEER, AGED 4 YEARS, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, VARIKKOTTIL HOUSE, OZHUR P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU,SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV.,SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. *ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED: R2. NUSAIRA, AGED 3 YEARS, W/O.HUSSAIN, KURIYADI HOUSE, VETTOM, ALISSERY, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ”

121. (*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 19/07/2013 IN CRL.M.A.NO.5768/2013) R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ROY THOMAS R2 BY ADV. SMT.SAJITHA.S.DHARAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P. BHAVADASAN, J.

...................................................... B.A.NO.4927 of 2013 ...................................................... Dated this the 5th day of August, 2013 ORDER

Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.894/2013 of Tirur Police station, who is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. The allegation against him is that on 25.6.2013 between 11 a.m and 12.10 a.m while the petitioner was dressing the wound of the defacto complainant, the petitioner is alleged to have fondled the breasts of the defacto complainant. Petitioner would say that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the case by vested interest. It is pointed out by the petitioner that immediately after the incident, an enquiry was conducted and Annexure-B is the report thereof. It was thereafter that the crime was registered and the petitioner is sought to be arrested.

2. The petitioner was directed to implead the defacto complainant, who was entered appearance through counsel and points out that the offence is of grave nature and anticipatory bail could not be granted.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail application and it is pointed out that in view of the nature of the B.A.NO.4927 o”

2. offence, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

4. True, if the allegations are correct, the matter is very serious. But one cannot easily ignore Annexure-B report. It is seen observed in Annexure-B that the incident alleged to have taken place at a time when there are other staff members in the room. Since no other patient or no staff members had given any supporting statement and since no complaint was received in the hospital itself, the issue was closed. On consideration of Annexure- B report there may be some substance in what the petitioner says. It is difficult to believe in a crowded hospital an incident of the nature alleged could not happened without being noticed by anybody. Whatever be the situation, it is felt that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed as follows: i. The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on or before 16.08.2013, who after interrogation shall produce the petitioner before the JFCM court concerned, which court on application for bail filed by the petitioner shall release him on bail on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the JFCM concerned. B.A.NO.4927 o”

3. 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 petitioner. iii. The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer on every Sunday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders. iv. The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses. v. If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioner 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. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. cl