Allowed

Maheen Kannu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jan 2013Bail Appl./101/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to a petitioner who was an accused in three separate criminal cases involving robbery and theft. Rejecting claims of illegal custody and false implication, the court released the petitioner on personal bond with sureties and specific reporting conditions due to lack of absconding risk.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail on personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with two solvent sureties, requiring weekly reporting and prohibition on witness tampering.

Maheen Kannu Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/27TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 101 of 2013 (A)

¶6

CRIME NO. 1826/2012 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONRE(S)/ 3RD ACCUSED :

¶8

MAHEEN KANNU, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.LATE ZAINULABDEEN, MAYAMCODE LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, ARIKKADAMUKKU, EDAVAKODE DESOM, PALLICHAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGHCOURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV. SMT. LALIZA T.Y.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-01-2013, ALONG WITH BA. 102/2013 & BA. 103/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

- - - - B.A. Nos. 101, 102 & 103 of 2013

¶17

¶18

Dated this the 17^th day of January, 2013.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.1826 of 2012 of Nemon Police Station, from which B.A. 101 of 2013 arises, he is the fourth accused in Crime No.1734 of 2012 of the same Police Station, from which B.A. 102 of 2013 arises and he is the third accused in Crime No. 1646 of the same Police Station from which B.A. 103 of 2013 arises.

¶21

In Crime No. 1826 of 2012, he is accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 394 I.P.C. In Crime No. 1734 of 2012, he is accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 394 I.P.C.. In Crime No. 1646 of 2012, he is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

¶22

The petitioner would say that a motor bike was parked in front of his shop and that was found to be a stolen

¶23

B.A.101/2013 & con.cases.

¶24

¶25

property. In relation to that vehicle, he was taken into custody on 3.12.2012 and without recording his arrest or implicating him in any case, he was kept under illegal custody. His mother made an application before the Superintendent of Police and also before the JFCM Court concerned seeking search warrant in respect of him. The petitioner would say that on coming to know of the same, he has been falsely implicated in Crime No.1826 of 2012 and in order to strengthen that, it is stated, based on his alleged confession statement, two crimes were registered against him. He would say that he is totally innocent and has been falsely implicated in all these cases. According to him, he has not committed any act which would constitute an offence. According to him, he is in custody from 5.12.2012 on wards and his continued custody is unnecessary.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the

¶27

application by pointing out that the petitioner is a habitual offender and that could be seen from the three crimes which

¶28

B.A.101/2013 & con.cases.

¶29

¶30

are registered against him. The claim of illegal detention etc., according to the learned Public Prosecutor, is without any basis. The petitioner is involved in the crimes registered against him. It is also pointed out that investigation is not yet complete.

¶31

Even assuming that all the allegations are true, the petitioner was arrested in Crime No.1829 of 2012 and it is based on his confession statement that he was implicated in the other two crimes. It is an undisputed fact that he has been in custody from 5.12.2012 onwards. It is unnecessary for this court to probe into the question as to whether the petitioner has been detained in illegal custody or not. Petitioner's mother had sought for a search warrant from the court concerned and proceedings are still pending. Any how, that is not a matter for this court to consider while considering this application. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in custody from 5.12.2012. A good part of the investigation in all these cases must have been

¶32

¶33

B.A.101/2013 & con.cases.

¶34

completed by now. Since no apprehension is expressed by the investigating agency that if released on bail, the petitioner is likely to abscond, his continued custody appears to be unnecessary.

¶35

Therefore, these applications are allowed on the following conditions:

¶36

i) Petitioner shall be released on bail in each of these cases on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of JFCM-I, Neyyattinkara.

¶37

ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts that are sought to be produced at the time of executing the bond.

¶38

iii) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. till final report is laid.

¶39

B.A.101/2013 & con.cases.

¶40

¶41

iv) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶42

v) If any of the condition is violated, bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled, and the JFCM concerned may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶43

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶44

sb.

Maheen Kannu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheen Kannu 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

Jamnas Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Pratheeshan Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Jayarajan Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Hashif T.M. @ Asif Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Arshad Vs State of Kerala