Allowed

Ziad and Another v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jun 2010Bail Appl./1850/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to two accused facing criminal charges under various IPC sections, including attempt to murder. The court directed surrender within seven days and stipulated that Section 308 IPC would be excluded from bail proceedings if the surrender conditions were met.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with direction to surrender within seven days and exclusion of Section 308 IPC from charge for bail purposes upon surrender.

Ziad and Another Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶3

Bail Appl..No. 1850 of 2010() ------------------------------------CRMP.593/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM .................... (CRIME NO. 372/2010 OF KOLLAM POLICE STATION)

¶4

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 AND 3

¶5

¶6

ZIAD, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. ALIYARUKUNJU, BHAVANATHU PADINJATTATHIL, EDAPALLIKOTTA, KOLLAM.

¶7

SAIJU, AGED 28, S/O. SHARAFUDEEN, NATIONAL NAGAR 123, VAYALIL THOPPU, POLAYATHODU, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.HEMA, J

¶15

B.A No.1850 OF 2010

¶16

Dated this the 16^th day of June 2010

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶19

The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b), 427, 308 r/w 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 01/03/2010, petitioners (A2 and A3) along with first accused wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and abused him and his employer and inflicted injuries. He was beaten with an iron chair.

¶20

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no incident as alleged has taken place. De facto complainant and first accused were quarrelling with each other. Then, petitioners intervened. De facto complainant, on a misunderstanding that petitioners are came to support first accused, implicated petitioners names also. No serious injury is sustained in the incident, but, offence under Section 308 is included.

¶21

On hearing both sides and going through Case Diary, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I find that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. However, on perusal of the Wound Certificate and nature of injury sustained, I find that petitioners have strong arguable case regarding involvement of Section 308 IPC. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶22

B.A No.1850 OF 2010

¶23

¶24

(1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today.

¶25

(2) On such surrender and in the event of arrest, offence under Section 308 will be treated as not included for the purpose of bail.

¶26

Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶27

K.HEMA JUDGE

¶28

vdv

Ziad and Another v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ziad 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

Krishna Kumar Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosecut

Santhosh and Others Vs State of Kerala

Nishar Vs State of Kerala

Pavithran Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Paresh K.V. and Others Vs State of Kerala