Allowed

Muneer v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC9 Aug 2012Bail Appl./5573/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted bail to accused persons Muneer and Abdul Kareem, who were accused of one-way assault causing hurt and attempted murder, subject to strict conditions including a monetary bond, regular appearances for interrogation, and travel restrictions within Kerala.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioners subject to conditions including a bond of Rs.50,000 each, attendance for interrogation, and restriction from leaving Kerala.

Muneer Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/18TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5573 of 2012 -----------------------------CRIME NO. 783 OF 2011 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION.

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2 AND 3:-:

¶7

MUNEER,, AGED 20 YEARS

¶8

S/O.AMMED, THYULLABILATHAZHAKUNI HOUSE

¶9

THIRUVALLUR P.O., KANNINADA

¶10

ABDUL KAREEM,, AGED 22 YEARS

¶11

S/O.AMMED, PADINJARA KAZHUNTHAMMAL HOUSE

¶12

THIRUVALLUR P.O., KANNINADA.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:-:

¶15

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKARA POLICE STATION,

¶16

KOZHIKODE DIST - 673 001.

¶17

STATE OF KERALA,

¶18

REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶19

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. JASMINE V.H.

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶22

=================

¶23

B. A. No. 5573 of 2012

¶24

=================

¶25

Dated this the 9^th day of August, 2012

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 respectively in Crime No. 783 of 2011 of Vadakara Police Station. Offences alleged against them are under sections 341, 326, 308, 506 r/w Sn.34 IPC. They are in custody from 25-7-2004 onwards.

¶28

The incident took place on 20-7-2011 at about 11 p.m. It is alleged that these petitioners and other accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the de faco complainant and attacked him with sticks and other weapons with the knowlege that had the blow fallen on the head of the de facto complainant, he would succumb to the injuries. The petitioners inflicted injuries on several parts of the body of the de facto complainant, it is alleged.

¶29

B.A.No.5573/2012

¶30

¶31

The first accused was granted bail after a period of detention of 20 days. Considering all the aspects, the petitioners are granted bail with effect from 13-8-2012, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

The petitioners shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. If in case the Magistrate has any doubt about the genuineness or correctness of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, the learned Magistrate can insist for production of the attested photo copies of the original title deeds of the sureties.

¶33

The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and that they should appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶34

The petitionrs shall produce their original passports before the learned Magistrate. If they are not having any valid passport, they should file an affidavit

¶35

B.A.No.5573/2012 - 3 -

¶36

regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶37

The petitioners will also file an affidavit stating that they will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that they will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and that they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶38

The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without permission of the court.

¶39

The learned Magistrate will also ensure the identity of the sureties by insisting production of electoral photo identity cards/driving licence etc.

¶40

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶41

Muneer v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muneer v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Vincent Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Sadanandan Vs State of Kerala

Jayan @ Baiju Vs State of Kerala

Mujeeb Rahiman N.V. Vs the State of Kerala

Vijayan.M.v. Vs State of Kerala