Allowed

Firos Khan and Another v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jun 2010Bail Appl./3174/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed by a husband and wife accused of offences under Sections 294(b), 332, and 342 IPC. The court granted bail after considering the civil dispute context and the lack of express hurt in the case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail on bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties for the like sum.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 3174 of 2010()

¶5

----------------------------CRIME NO.638/2010 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION.

¶6

(S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶7

¶8

FIROS KHAN.N., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.NINAR SAHIB, EATTIMOOTTIL HOUSE, PETTA, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶9

NIJILA FIROSH, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.FIROSH KHAN, EATTIMOOTTIL HOUSE, PETTA, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SMT.K.M.NAZREEN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.HEMA, J.

¶17

Bail Application No.3174 of 2010

¶18

Dated 17^th June, 2010.

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶21

The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b), 332 and 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 7.5.2010, at about 11 a.m., petitioners (accused nos.1 and 2)who are husband and wife along with their children and some others entered into the office room of Secretary of the Municipality and abused him in obscene language and wrongfully confined him and also deterred him from discharging his official duty, by prohibiting him from making phone call, when he lifted the phone.

¶22

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the allegations made against petitioners are not correct. There is a civil dispute between petitioners and their aunts, who are residing in the same house and a suit is also pending. For the same building, two numbers were allotted as 115 and 116. One of the aunts is working in the Municipality. On her petition, a certificate was issued, stating that petitioners are not residing in building no.115. Because of this certificate, the ration card issued to

¶23

BA NO.3174/10

¶24

¶25

petitioners was cancelled.

¶26

Petitioners, therefore, approached the Secretary of the Municipality and explained to him the facts and wanted a correction to be effected in the certificate issued. But, he was not prepared to do the same. Hence, they told him that a complaint will be lodged before the Vigilance Department. The incident happened at 11 a.m. and fearing that some complaint will be given, defacto complainant has lodged a complaint by about 5 p.m., stating that he was deterred from discharging his official duty etc. Petitioners have produced Annexures A1 to A6, in support of their contentions.

¶27

It is also pointed out that the offence is under Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code. As per Section 332 hurt must be caused to a public servant to deter him from official duty. As per the allegations in the F.I. statement, no hurt was caused to defacto complainant. Therefore, offence under Section 332 will not be attracted, it is submitted.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the F.I. statement, there are certain facts which corroborate the present case set up by petitioners. In the above circumstances, it is submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail.

¶29

BA NO.3174/10

¶30

¶31

7. On hearing both sides and considering the various

¶32

facts and circumstances and also on going through Annexures A1 to A6, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners. Hence, the following order is passed :

¶33

(1) Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today.

¶34

(2) On such surrender, they shall be released on bail, on their executing bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions :

¶35

(i) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation.

¶36

(ii) In case petitioners are involved in any offence of similar nature, bail is liable to be cancelled.

¶37

Petition is allowed.

¶38

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

¶39

tgs

Firos Khan and Another v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firos Khan 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

Ziad and Another Vs State of Kerala

Pavithran Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Sadhukuttan Vs State of Kerala

E.O.Lawrence Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala