Allowed

Abdul Samad C.A. and Others v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Feb 2011Bail Appl./970/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by five accused persons charged under Sections 406, 498A, and 34 IPC. The High Court granted anticipatory bail subject to specific conditions including reporting to the Investigating Officer and not tampering with evidence, relying on the principles laid down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on bond of Rs. 25,000 with two solvent sureties each, subject to conditions of reporting and non-interference.

Abdul Samad C.A. and Others Vs State of Kerala — Dowry and Cruelty | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 970 of 2011()

¶5

-------------------------------------CRIME NO.82/2011 OF MALA POLICE STATION.

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5

¶7

----------------------------------------------

¶8

1. ABDUL SAMAD.C.A,AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RASHEED,CHULLIYIL HOUSE, MUDUVAMMEL,KOCHANNUR PO, VIA VADAKKEKKAD,THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.LATE YOUSELF MUSALIAR,DO. DO.

¶10

3. MRS.KAMAR JOHAN,AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL RASHEED,DO. DO.

¶11

4. MOHAMMED YOUSEF,AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RASHEED,DO. DO.

¶12

5. MISS KHADEEJU,AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL RASHEED,DO. DO.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.S.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶14

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶15

-------------------------------------------------

¶16

STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MALA POLICE STATION,(CRIME 82/2011) REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

BY BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

tss

¶20

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶21

.............................................. B.A. No.970 of 2011

¶22

................................................ Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2011.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

In this Petition filed under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No. 82 of 2011 of Mala Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 498A and 34 I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

¶25

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

After evaluating the factors and parameters which are to be taken into consideration in the light of paragraph 122 of the verdict dated 2-12-2010 of the Apex Court in Siddharam

¶27

Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2010 (4) KLT 930) , I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the officerin-charge of the police station concerned to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the above case on each of them executing a bond for `25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction to the said officer and subject to the following conditions:

¶28

B. A.No.970/2011

¶29

-:2:-

¶30

Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays.

¶31

Petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶32

Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall they attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶33

Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶34

The bail granted pursuant to this order shall be in force till the end of the trial of the case unless and until it is cancelled by this Court in accordance with paragraph 103 of the verdict in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre's case (supra).

¶35

If the petitioners commit breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to them shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶36

This application is allowed as above.

¶37

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2011.

¶38

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶39

Abdul Samad C.A. and Others v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Samad C.A. and Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Juval George Vs B.K.Vijayan

P.a.Xavier Vs Tresamma and Another

Regunathan Vs P.Ramani and 13 Others

Anees Vs State

Nannannan Atavalath Vs a.P.M.Mohammed Hanish

The Manager,Mmnssem High School Vs Sri.Johns v.John