Allowed

Basheer and Another v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jun 2009Bail Appl./397/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners accused of kidnapping and robbery. The court directed that if arrested, they must be released on bail upon executing a bond with sureties, subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with a direction to release on bail if arrested, upon executing a bond of Rs.25,000 each with two solvent sureties for the like amount.

Basheer and Another Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 397 of 2009()

¶6

---------------------------CRIME NO.762/2008 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2

¶8

¶9

BASHEER, S/O.ALAVI, AGED 30 YEARS, THIYATHUKUYIL HOUSE, PUTHUR AMSOM, OMASSERI DESOM OF KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

MANI @ ASHRAF, S/O.MUHAMMED, KURUMBAMMAL HOUSE, PAZHOOR AMSOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE

¶15

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶19

B.A.No.397 of 2009

¶20

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2009

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.762 of 2008 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode.

¶23

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 365 and 395 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The prosecution case is that the accused persons kidnapped the defacto complainant and committed robbery of Rs.20,000/- and a mobile phone from the defacto complainant. When the Bail Application came up on 5.2.2009, the undertaking of the learned public prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested till the disposal of the application was recorded. On 20.2.2009, the following order was passed:

¶25

“Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that defacto complainant was working as a Manager and looking after the affairs of a hotel of first petitioner's sister. Thereafter, he was inducted as a partner in a ready made business started by the sister. Subsequently, he started making physical advance towards the sister, which she informed to the first petitioner. There was some quarrel on account of this

¶26

BA No.397/2009

¶27

¶28

and the incident did not happen, as alleged. Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on 25.2.2009 between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. and make themselves available for interrogation. Post on 27.2.2009”

¶29

In accordance with the order dated 20.2.2009, the

¶30

petitioners surrendered before the Investigating Officer and they were interrogated. The learned public prosecutor submitted that on further investigation, it is revealed that no offence under Section 365 or 395 is made out and that only an offence under Section 324 would be attracted. However, Sections 365 and 395 are not deleted as of now.

¶31

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶33

b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

¶34

BA No.397/2009

¶35

¶36

c) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.

¶37

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶38

K.T.SANKARAN,

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

csl

Basheer and Another v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basheer and Another 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

Sulfikar Vs State of Kerala

Meethala Kuttan @ Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Moideen @ Moidu Vs State of Kerala

Nagarajan Vs Forest Range Officer and Another

E.M.P.Shukkoor Vs State of Kerala

T.S. Balaswamy Pillai Vs State of Kerala