Allowed

P.Sulaiman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 May 2008Bail Appl./2414/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application for anticipatory bail was admitted and allowed. The petitioner was granted bail subject to appearing before the Magistrate, executing a bond, and complying with directions to be available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer during a specified period.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on executing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and complying with interrogation conditions.

P.Sulaiman Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND MAY 2008 / 12TH VAISAKHA 1930

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2414 of 2008()

¶6

¶7

CRIME NO.86/08 OF THE MELATTUR POLICE STATION

¶8

PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED

¶9

¶10

P. SULAIMAN, S/O.MUHAMMED POOVATHI HOUSE, THACHINGANADAM P.O. PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K

¶12

RESPONDENTS: STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM (CR.NO.86/2008 OF MELATTUR POLICE STATION)

¶15

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PERINTHALMANNA.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR.

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

R. BASANT, J.

¶19

B.A. No. 2414 of 2008

¶20

Dated this the 2^nd day of May , 2008

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.353 of the IPC. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that on 13/3/08 accused 2 and 3 had loaded a lorry belonging to the petitioner with river sand and in the course of an attempt to transport the same, the revenue officials wanted interception of the lorry. The petitioner deliberately caused obstruction for the movement of the vehicle in which the revenue officials were proceeding and thereby interfered with the performance of the official duties by the revenue officials. The alleged incident took place on 13/3/08. The crime was registered long later on 17/3/08. According to the petitioner, the boot is on the other leg.

¶23

B.A. No. 2414 of 2008 -: 2 :-

¶24

There was improper behaviour on the part of the officials. This obliges the petitioner to file a complaint (Annexure-I dated 13/3/08) before the District Collector. On coming to know that, long later on 17/3/08, the present complaint has been raised and the FIR was registered. In any view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate and comply with all reasonable conditions, it is submitted.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor, after discussions at the Bar, does not oppose the application and I am satisfied that anticipatory bail subject to appropriate conditions can be granted to the petitioner.

¶26

In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C:

¶27

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 9/5/08. He shall be released on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

¶28

(ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on 10/5/08 and thereafter on all Mondays between 10

¶29

B.A. No. 2414 of 2008 -: 3 :-

¶30

a.m. and 12 noon for a period of one month. Subsequently, he shall so make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the

¶31

Investigating Officer in writing to do so.

¶32

(iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all.

¶33

(iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 9/5/08 as directed in clause (i) above, he shall be released on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 9/5/08.

¶34

Sd/(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

¶35

Nan/

¶36

//true copy//

¶37

P.S. to Judge

P.Sulaiman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sulaiman 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

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Binumon and Others Vs

Shaji @ Rajan Mathew Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Ibrahim Kutty Vs State of Kerala & Anr.

Sivanandan Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala