Dismissed

Chenathu Musthafa v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jun 2010Bail Appl./2680/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court rejected the application for anticipatory bail in offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, and 308 IPC. However, noting minor injuries and strong grounds against 308 IPC, the petitioner was directed to report within seven days; if arrested, 308 IPC would be excluded for bail purposes.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused with direction to report to investigate officer within seven days; Section 308 IPC excluded if arrested.

Chenathu Musthafa Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶2

Bail Appl..No. 2680 of 2010() ---------------------------------------CMC.387/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI ....................................................

¶3

APPLICANT/IST ACCUSED --------------------------------------

¶4

CHENATHU MUSTHAFA,S/O.IBRAHIM, PRINTHALLOOR,ALATHIYOOR VILLAGE,TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN

¶6

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------STATE OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.REPRESENTING THE C.I.OF POLICE,TIRUR POLICE STATION.

¶7

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZ

¶8

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

sou.

¶10

K. HEMA, J

¶11

B.A.No.2680 OF 2010

¶12

----------------------------------Dated this the 4^th day of June, 2010

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶15

The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 308 r/w 149 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner along with six other persons allegedly formed into unlawful assembly and assaulted defacto complainant and his friends using knife and thereby committed various offences.

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was a motor accident at around the same time of offence, a mini lorry was driven away without stopping. Certain persons thought that petitioner who was driving the mini lorry was responsible for the accident and certain persons intercepted his vehicle and assaulted petitioner and he sustained injuries. He was hospitalised on the same day. Later it was revealed that he was not the person responsible for the accident. But they apprehend that complaint will be lodged against offenders, and hence a false complaint is filed against petitioner making false allegations as a shield. Though knife is alleged to be used by petitioner, no injury is sustained, but sections 308 IPC is included to refuse bail.

¶17

B.A. No.2680/10

¶18

¶19

Learned public prosecutor submitted that allegation is that petitioner used a knife and assaulted defacto complainant and his friends and all of them were hospitalised. Hence it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

¶20

On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. However, on going through case diary, particularly through wound certificate I find that the injuries sustained by the injured are all scratches and abrasions and complaints of pain. I am satisfied that petitioner has a strong case in respect of involvement of offence u/s 308 IPC. I also find that petitioner may be required for the purpose of investigation. Hence the following order is passed :

¶21

1. Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer within seven days from today and cooperate with investigation.

¶22

1. If petitioner is arrested, offence u/s.308 IPC will be treated as not included, for the purpose of bail.

¶23

This petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶24

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

¶25

Sou.

Chenathu Musthafa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chenathu Musthafa 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

Ramesh Vs State of Kerala

Aji @ Ajithkumar Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Saru Vs State of Kerala

Sojan Vs State of Kerala

Rajin P.Raj Vs State of Kerala

Gireesh S.R. Vs State of Kerala