Dismissed

Mujeeb Rahiman N.V. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Aug 2012Bail Appl./5576/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed by accused persons apprehending arrest in Crime No.77/2012, the High Court considered the arguments for and against anticipatory bail. Weighing the serious nature of injuries sustained by victims and the prosecution's concerns about investigation impediment, the court declined to grant relief.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.

Mujeeb Rahiman N.V. Vs the State of Kerala — 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. 5576 of 2012 ()

¶6

IN CRMP.1201/2012 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KASARAGOD IN CRIME NO.77/2012 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION

¶7

ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. MUJEEB RAHIMAN N.V., AGED 26 YEARS

¶9

S/O.T.MOIDEEN, EDACHAKAI.P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT.

¶10

2. MUHAMMED SHAREEF A.V., AGED 19 YEARS

¶11

S/O.NAZER,EDACHAKAI.P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT.

¶12

3. SUHAIB.K.P., AGED 20 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED SALI, EDACHAKAI.P.O. KASARGODE DISTRICT.

¶13

4. SIDDIQUE.K.K., AGED 19 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, EDACHAKAI.P.O. KASARGODE DISTRICT.

¶14

5. MUHAMMED SHAFEEQUE K.K., AGED 22 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, KUTTIKULAM HOUSE, EDACHAKAI.P.O. KASARGODE DISTRICT.

¶15

6. FAHANAS K.K., AGED 18 YEARS

¶16

S/O.USMAN, EDACHAKAI.P.O., KASARGODE DISTRICT.

¶17

7. MANZOOR M.T.P., AGED 18 YEARS

¶18

S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, EDACHAKAI.P.O.

¶19

KASARGODE DISTRICT.

¶20

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶21

COMPLAINANT(S)/STATE:

¶22

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-31 - THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHANDERA, POLICE STATION, KASARGODE DISTRICT.

¶23

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. JASMINE V.H.

¶24

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶27

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

¶28

B.A. No.5576 OF 2012

¶29

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

¶30

Dated this the 09^th day of August, 2012

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

Petitioners are accused Nos. 5, 15, 19, 14, 18, 16 and 17 respectively in Crime No.77/2012 of Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod. The offences alleged against them are under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326 and 307 r/w 149 of IPC. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶33

It is alleged that on 09.02.2012, at about 9.30 PM, the petitioner along with other accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at a place called Edachakkai Village and in prosecution of the common object of that unlawful assembly, the accused persons committed rioting carrying deadly weapons like iron rod, cycle chain, cricket stump, wooden stick etc. They attacked the complainant and his friends with deadly weapons mentioned above. It is alleged that common object of the unlawful

¶34

B.A.No.5576/2012

¶35

-2-

¶36

assembly was to cause murder of the defacto complainant and his friends. It is stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested by the police and they have been in custody.

¶37

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that names of these petitioners were not mentioned earlier and that no serious injury was caused. This submission is strongly resisted by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is pointed out that the injured Shabir had sustained fracture of both bones of both hands and he was beaten on his head with iron rod with intent to cause his death so forcibly that the injury was to be sutured with 18 stitches. Besides that, one tooth was also broken. It is also stated that the witnesses Shakir and Noufal were also attacked by the accused persons who also sustained injuries on their head and other parts of the body. The wound certificate would show the serious injuries which the complainant and two others had sustained in the incident.

¶38

The learned Public Prosecutor has strongly

¶39

B.A.No.5576/2012

¶40

opposed the petition for bail and stating that if the petitioners are released on bail that would impede the smooth investigation of the case.

¶41

The contention raised by the prosecution that there is likelihood of the accused fleeing to another country or making himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency also cannot be ignored.

¶42

Considering all these aspects, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the accused. The application is hence dismissed.

¶43

Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶44

¶45

//True copy//

¶46

P.A. to Judge

Mujeeb Rahiman N.V. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujeeb Rahiman N.V. 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

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

Muneer Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Vijayan.M.v. Vs State of Kerala