Dismissed

Jiffry v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Oct 2007Bail Appl./6294/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala declined to grant anticipatory bail to the 4th accused in a murder and kidnapping case. The court held that granting bail would hamper the ongoing investigation and directed the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; direction to surrender and seek regular bail.

Jiffry Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2007 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1929

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6294 of 2007() ----------------------------CRIME NO.126/05 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶6

PETITIONER : 4TH ACCUSED:

¶7

¶8

JIFFRY, S/O.K.N.KUNAHAMMAD, AGED 47 YEARS, K.N.HOUSE, BEKKAL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT:

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (THROUGH CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION).

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

R.BASANT, J -----------------------------------B.A.No.6294 of 2007

¶16

Dated this the 23^rd day of October, 2007

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 4^th accused in a crime registered as Crime No.126 of 2005 of Chavakkad Police Station. The petitioner, along with co-accused, faces allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 365 I.P.C.

¶19

The murder of one Shamsudin took place on 26.01.2005. Chavakkad Police registered Crime 46 of 2005 under Section 302 I.P.C. 2 accused persons were arrayed as accused. Accused No.1 is one Kamarudin. He was arrested on 4.3.05. On interrogation, he narrated a version before the Investigating Officer which explains his alleged culpable conduct in the said crime 46 of 2005. He alleged in such confession statement that in November, 2004, he (the said 1^st accused Kamarudin) was illegally kidnapped by a group of persons who detained him illegally at Kasaragod and compelled a friend and associate of the said Kamarudin who resides abroad to settle certain disputes. On the confession statement made by the 1^st accused Kamarudin, which revealed commission of the offence punishable under Section 365 I.P.C in November, 2004, a crime was registered on 5.3.05 as Crime 126 of 2005. The allegation against the petitioner, the 4^th accused is that he along with other accused had taken the said 1^st accused Kamarudin illegally in a vehicle from Chavakkad to Kasaragod. He was allegedly detained there.

¶20

B.A.No.6294 of 2007

¶21

¶22

The murder cases has already been investigated and final report filed. Now the police is taking up investigation in Crime 126 of 2005. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. Accused 2 and 8 have already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. Though the incident took place in November, 2004, the said Kamarudin/defacto complaint had not lodged any complaint. He has invented a reason to claim mitigation for his culpable conduct in the murder casebelatedly. The petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail in these circumstances, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation has not made any headway. Accused 2 and 8 have already secured anticipatory bail from the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail. Such grant of anticipatory bail would hamper the proper and efficient investigation of the crime, submits the learned Public Prosecutor .

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner raises a further grievance that if he were to be arrested and brought to Chavakkad, he apprehends physical harm and liquidation at the hands of his adversaries. For this reason also appropriate direction under Section 438 may be issued, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

B.A.No.6294 of 2007

¶26

¶27

Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to agree that any circumstances exist justifying or warranting the invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Notwithstanding the fact that accused 2 and 8 have already been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge and notwithstanding the fact that the alleged incident took place in November, 2004 and the crime was registered only on 5.3.05, I am satisfied that the matter requires to be investigated thoroughly and in detail and that grant of anticipatory bail to an accused like the petitioner would hamper the smooth course of investigation. I am not persuaded to agree that the petitioner must be permitted to arm himself with an order of anticipatory at this stage. The petitioner must resort to the ordinary course of surrendering before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate. He must then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. If the petitioner apprehends any physical danger to himself, he can inform the Investigating Officer about the place where he will be available for arrest. On receipt of such information, the Investigating Officer must take appropriate steps to ensure arrest of the petitioner and protect and safeguard the petitioner's interests and allay the apprehension of danger to his person.

¶28

This petition is accordingly dismissed with the above observations.

¶29

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶30

rtr/-

¶31

B.A.No.6294 of 2007 4

Jiffry v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiffry v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala

Gokuldas Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Das Vs State of Kerala

K.Kumaran Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Jayan Vs State of Kerala