High Court Kerala High Court

Muhammed Musthafa vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
Muhammed Musthafa vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3973 of 2008()


1. MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, S/O. MUSTHAFA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :24/06/2008

 O R D E R
                             K.HEMA, J.

                 -----------------------------------------
                        B.A.No.3973 of 2008
                 -----------------------------------------

              Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008

                               O R D E R

This petition is for bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 376 of Indian Penal

Code. The alleged victim was working as servant in the house of the

petitioner and she was allegedly raped by the petitioner on several

occasions, while his wife was not available in the house. The victim

is aged 16 years.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this is a

falsely foisted case. The petitioner has not committed any offence.

He is aged 85 years. According to him, the alleged victim left the

house in April, 2008 and thereafter started working in another

house. She and her mother thereafter made demands for money

from the petitioner, which the petitioner was not willing to give.

Thereafter, after two months, a false complaint has been filed

against the petitioner.

4. Heard both sides. As per the allegations in the First

Information Statement, rape was committed on the 16 year old girl

and it is stated therein that there was penetration. But, as per the

BA.3973/08 2

medical report dated 29.5.2008, the hymen was intact and vagina

admits only tip of finger. The opinion is that there is no sign of

sexual intercourse. There was no history of bleeding also during

the sexual act. It is seen from the records that the alleged victim

was examined in another hospital also on the same day on 3.30 pm

and there was also an observation, “hymen intact, admits tip of

finger”.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the report

dated 29.5.2008 at 3.30 pm issued from the SAT hospital, opinion is

reserved waiting receipt of chemical analysis report. It appears

vaginal swab was taken and sent for chemical analysis. But, it was

taken long after two months of the alleged incident. Petitioner is in

custody from 2.6.2008 onwards.

6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that bail can be

granted to the petitioner.

Hence, petitioner is granted bail on the following terms and

conditions:

i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two

solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

court below.

BA.3973/08 3

ii) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer on

every Monday between 10 AM and 1 PM until further orders.

iii). Petitioner shall not leave the limits of the police station

within which he is residing, except with the previous permission of

the Magistrate Court concerned.

iv) Petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or influence the

witnesses or intimidate them or get involved in any offence of

similar nature while on bail and in case of breach of this condition,

the bail is liable to be cancelled.

Petition is allowed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE

vgs.