Dismissed

Ali Akbar v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC4 Dec 2012Bail Appl./8280/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a bail application filed by accused persons charged with offences under the IPC relating to affray and causing hurt. The Court held that the petition is not maintainable at this stage as the investigation is still at its initial stage and the allegations are serious.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Petitioners directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer by 12.12.2012.

Ali Akbar Vs the 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 P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/13TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8280 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1088/2012 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 7 AND 9 :

¶8

1. ALI AKBAR,

¶9

S/O. MUHAMMADKUTTY, AGED 26 YEARS,

¶10

VELUTHEDATHMANNIL HOUSE

¶11

VINAYUR WEST P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

2. SHARAFUDHEEN,

¶13

S/O. BAPPUTTY, AGED 26 YEARS,

¶14

KORAKKOTTIL HOUSE, VINAYUR WEST P.O.,

¶15

PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶16

3. ABDUL AZEEZ,

¶17

S/O. KUTTY, AGED 36 YEARS,

¶18

VINAYUR WEST P.O., PATTAMBI PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶19

4. NISSAMUDHEEN,

¶20

S/O. FAREED, AGED 22 YEARS,

¶21

KOORACHI HOUSE, VINAYUR WEST P.O. PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶22

5. MUHAMMADKUTTY,

¶23

S/O. UNNEENKUTTY HAJI, AGED 36 YEARS,

¶24

VELUTHEDATHMANNIL HOUSE

¶25

VINAYUR WEST P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶26

6. SHIHABUDHEEN,

¶27

S/O. SAITHUTTY, AGED 26 YEARS, MUCHIKOOTTATHIL HOUSE

¶28

VINAYUR WEST P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶29

7. ABDUL MAJEED,

¶30

S/O. MUHAMMADKUTTY, AGED 28 YEARS, KOORACHIYIL HOUSE

¶31

VINAYUR WEST P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶32

8. INSAFUDHEEN,

¶33

S/O. BASHEER, AGED 26 YEARS,

¶34

KALACHAL HOUSE, VINAYUR WEST P.O.

¶35

PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶36

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶37

...2/-

¶38

Bail Appl..No. 8280 of 2012 () -2-

¶39

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE :

¶40

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶41

PATTAMBI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT663 001.

¶42

2. STATE OF KERALA,

¶43

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶44

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶45

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.P. RAMAPRASAD UNNI T.

¶46

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

¶48

P.BHAVADASAN, J

¶49

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

¶50

B.A No.8280 of 2012

¶51

Dated this the 4^th day of December, 2012

¶52

O R D E R

¶53

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the petition as far as the 4^th petitioner is concerned has become infructuous since he has already been arrested and remanded to custody.

¶54

The petitioners would pointed out that they are totally innocent and have been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 308 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The incident is said to have occurred on 22.10.2012 at about 8.30 pm. On going through the records the claim of the petitioners that they are totally innocent, does not appear to be correct. A deeper probe into the matter is unwarranted at this point of time.

¶55

Suffice to say that, considering the nature of allegation against the petitioners, the manner in which the act committed by them, injuries caused to the victim and also considering the fact that the investigation is at the initial stage,

¶56

B.A No.8280 of 2012

¶57

: 2:

¶58

preclude this Court from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶59

However, if so advised, the petitioners may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 12.12.2012, who after interrogation, shall produce them before the JFCM Court concerned. If the petitioners move applications for regular bail before the said court, the learned Magistrate shall consider and pass orders thereon in accordance with law, if possible on the same day itself.

¶60

P.BHAVADASAN Judge

¶61

Ali Akbar v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Akbar v. the 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

Stephen P.Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Binu Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Nissam Vs State of Kerala

Anuroop.K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Binoy Vs State of Kerala