Kerala High Court
Jubeena vs State Of Kerala on 13 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 23RD POUSHA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 9206 OF 2021
CRIME NO.583/2021 OF KOTTAPPADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 2362/2021 OF I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:
JUBEENA
AGED 30 YEARS
S/I. YUSEF, PATTARUMADOM, KOTTPPADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM-
686 692.
BY ADV SRUTHY N. BHAT
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682 031.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. T.R. RANJITH (SR.PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.9206/2021 2
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.583/2021 of
Kottappady Police Station, Ernakulam District alleging commission of offences
under Sections 212, 225, 323, 353 & Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along
with the other accused had sheltered the accused in Crime No.1218/2021 and
when the Police personnel had arrived at the house of the petitioner for taking
the accused in Crime No.1218/2021 of Kurppumpady Police into custody, the
petitioner had obstructed the official duty of the Police and had also pushed
aside a Woman Police Constable and thereby committed the offences alleged
against her. It is also alleged that the accused helped the accused in Crime
No.1218/2021 to escape from the place.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused in
Crime No.1218/2021 of Kurppumpady Police Station is a cousin of the
petitioner herein and without knowing that she was involved in criminal case,
the petitioner and other family members had allowed her to stay in the house
of the petitioner. It is submitted that the allegation that the petitioner had
obstructed the official duty of Police Officers and had pushed aside a Woman
Police Officer is absolutely incorrect and baseless.
5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are clear
allegations that the petitioner had harboured a criminal and had aided her to
escape when the Police party had reached the house of the petitioner for the
purposes of taking the accused in Crime No.1218/2021 into custody. It is also
alleged that the petitioner along with the other accused had obstructed the
official duty of Police Officials and had also pushed aside a Woman Police
Officer and had thereby committed the offences alleged against him.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, I am of the
view that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
8. In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the
petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in
Crime No.583/2021 of Kottappady Police Station subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in
Crime No. 583/2021 of Kottappady Police Station as and when called upon to
do so;
(iii) Petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation or to influence
or intimidate any witness in Crime No.583/2021 of Kottappady Police Station;
(iv) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.
If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in
Crime No.583/2021 of KottappadyPolice Station may file an application before
the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
