Allowed

Arafath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2011Bail Appl./5508/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to accused No.9, 5, 8, 7 and 6 in a criminal case alleging offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 332, 354 and the Kerala Health Care Ordinance 2011, subject to mandatory conditions and a bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners subject to bond of `10,000` with two sureties and conditions to report every alternate Monday until final report or further orders.

Arafath Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5508 of 2011

¶6

CRIME NO.609 OF 2011 OF DISTRICT CRIME RECORDS BUREAU, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONERS: ACCUSED NOS.9,5,8,7 AND 6:

¶8

¶9

ARAFATH, AGED 25 YEARS S/O.THAJUDEEN @ KUNJUMON,PULIMOOTTIL ARUPARAMBIL, KAYAMKULAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE.

¶10

KOCHUMON, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.HALEEDH, PAZHAYATHERUVUVEETTIL VADAKKETHIL, KAYAMKULAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE.

¶11

VAHEED, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.KAMALUDHEEN KUNJU, PUTHENKANDATHIL, KAYAMKULAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE.

¶12

SADIQUE, AGED 35 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM KUTTY, PUTHENKANDATHIL KAYAMKULAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE.

¶13

SHAN ,AGED 27 YEARS S/O.ABDUL SALAM, CHIRAYIL, KAYAMKULAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL

¶15

RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT:

¶16

¶17

STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE DY.S.P. DISTRICT CRIME RECORD BUREAU ALAPPUZHA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶21

-----------------------------------------------------Bail Appl. NO. 5508 OF 2011

¶22

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2011

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are respectively accused Nos.9, 5, 8, 7 and 6 in Crime No.609 of 2011 of Kayamkulam Police Station.

¶25

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 332 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Health Care Service Persons and Health Care Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Ordinance 51 of 2010, which is re-promulgated as Ordinance 11 of 2011.

¶26

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 15^th July, 2011, the following order was passed:

¶27

“4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the

¶28

Bail Appl. NO.5508 OF 2011

¶29

:: 2 ::

¶30

offence, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the petitioners should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer on 21^st and 22^nd July, 2011.

¶31

Post on 28^th July, 2011.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.609 of 2011 of Kayamkulam Police Station, till 1^st August, 2011.”

¶33

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 15^th July, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioners.

¶34

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 15^th July, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioners, 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

¶35

Bail Appl. NO.5508 OF 2011

¶36

:: 3 ::

¶37

station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶38

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶43

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶44

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶45

ahz/

Arafath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arafath 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

M/S.Southern Weighing Instruments (P)Ltd Vs State of Kerala

Noorjahan Vs State of Kerala

Nishad Vs the State of Kerala

B.Biju Vs Geetha and Others

Umeshan Vs State of Kerala

Ahemmed Kutty N Vs State of Kerala