Dismissed

Nizamuddin v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Oct 2011Bail Appl./7589/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by three accused persons charged with offences under various sections of the IPC. The Court held that the allegations were grave and that granting bail would hinder the investigation, therefore the application was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was dismissed.

Nizamuddin Vs the 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

TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7589 of 2011()

¶6

----------------------------Crime No.783 of 2011 of Vatakara Police Station, Kozhikode District.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1-3

¶8

¶9

NIZAMUDDIN, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 19 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIRAKKARAMMAN HOUSE, THIRUVALLOOR P.O VADAKARA, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

MUNEER, S/O.AHAMMED, AGED 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT THAYYULLATHIL THAZHAKUNIYIL HOUSE, THIRUVALLOOR P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.AHAMMED, AGED 21, RESIDING AT PADINJARE KAVUNDHAMMEL HOUSE, VATAKARA, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

BY P.P.SRI.K.K.RAJEEV

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.T.SANKARAN, J .

¶19

--------------------------------B.A.No.7589 OF 2011

¶20

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2011

¶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 to 3 in Crime No.783 of 2011 of Vatakara Police Station, Kozhikode District.

¶23

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 326, 308 and 506(ii) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The prosecution case is that on 20.7.2011 at 11 P.M, the defacto complainant was attacked by the accused persons with iron rods and he sustained serious injuries. The defacto complainant was taken to the local hospital and taking into account the nature of the injuries, he was referred to the Medical College Hospital. The wound certificate would disclose that the defacto complainant sustained three

¶25

B.A.No. 7589 OF 2011 2

¶26

fractures on his mandible.

¶27

The allegations levelled against the petitioners are grave in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case.

¶28

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

¶29

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE .

¶30

cms

Nizamuddin v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nizamuddin v. the 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

Sasi @ Raja Gopal Vs State of Kerala

Thankappan Vs State of Kerala

Thankachan Vs State of Kerala

Nidhin Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Zacharia Joseph Vs State Rep.by the Public Prosecutor

Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala