Dismissed

Nadukkandiyil Mahamood v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Aug 2012Bail Appl./5608/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice N.K. Balakrishnan dismissed an application for anticipatory bail, directing petitioners to surrender for interrogation. Bail to be granted by Magistrate subject to conditions including bond, sureties, and restrictions on movement and evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Direction to surrender for interrogation; bail to be granted by Magistrate on specified conditions.

Nadukkandiyil Mahamood Vs 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

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/19TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5608 of 2012 () ------------------------------

¶6

(CRIME N0.344/2012 OF KOLAVALLUR POLICE STATION), KANNUR DIST. )

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. NADUKKANDIYIL MAHAMOOD, AGED 31 YEARS S/O.IBRAHIM, NADUKKANDIYIL HOUSE, CENTRAL POYILOOR THALASSERY.

¶9

2. NADUKKANDIYIL YOUSAF, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.IBRAHIM,NADUKKANDIYIL HOUSE, CENTRAL POYILOOR THALASSERY.

¶10

3. NADUKKANDIYIL MOOSA, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.IBRAHIM,NADUKKANDIYIL HOUSE, CENTRAL POYILOOR THALASSERY

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH GOURT OF KER5ALA, ERNAKULAM

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEHJITH V.S.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 5608 OF 2012

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2012

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Petitioners are accused Nos. 2 to 4 in Crime No.344/2012 of Kolavallur Police Station, Kannur. The offences alleged against them are under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 506(i) and 308 r/w 149 of IPC. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶23

It is alleged that the incident took place on 26.04.2012 at 5.30 PM. According to the prosecution, these petitioners who belong to opposite political party formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and carrying deadly weapons attacked the defacto complainant and his friends who belong to a political party in power. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact, the petitioners were attacked by the other group. The first petitioner and another man sustained injury in respect of which a crime as Crime No. 342/2012 was registered.

¶24

B.A.No.5608/2012

¶25

-2-

¶26

Considering all the aspects the following directions

¶27

are issued:

¶28

The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today. After interrogation the accused shall be produced before the learned Magistrate. When applied for bail by the accused, the learned Magistrate will, considering the nature of the case, grant bail to the petitioners but on the following conditions:

¶29

a. The accused shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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.

¶30

b. The accused shall make themselves available for interrogation by the

¶31

B.A.No.5608/2012

¶32

-3-

¶33

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

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

¶35

d. The accused will also file an affidavit 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.

¶36

e. The accused shall not leave the state of Kerala without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate.

¶37

B.A.No.5608/2012

¶38

-4-

¶39

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

¶40

Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶41

¶42

//True copy//

¶43

P.A. to Judge

Nadukkandiyil Mahamood v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadukkandiyil Mahamood 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

Jayan @ Baiju Vs State of Kerala

Muneer Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Mujeeb Rahiman N.V. Vs the State of Kerala

Jamalu.K.v. Vs State of Kerala

Chandrika Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala