Allowed

Hussan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jan 2013Bail Appl./11/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by two accused persons in a dispute over a property agreement and alleged assault. The court exercised its powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant anticipated bail subject to specific conditions including surrender within a stipulated date and obtaining a bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; surrender required before I.O. on or before 19.1.2013 with bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties.

Hussan Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/21ST POUSHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 11 of 2013 (B)

¶6

--------------------------------------[CRIME NO.1131/2012 OF CHERPLASSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT]

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. HUSSAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE MOHAMMED, PULATHARAKKAL HOUSE, CHERPLASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SAKEER, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. HUSSAN, PULATHARAKKAL HOUSE, CHERPLASSERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV, SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

(CRIME NO.1131/2012 OF CHERPLASSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT).

¶14

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHERPLASSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 503. (

¶15

CRIME NO.1131/2012 OF CHERPLASSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT).

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA.T.Y.

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Prv.

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

B.A. No.11 of 2013

Dated this the 11^th day of January, 2013

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners and the de facto complainant are close relatives. In fact the de facto complainant is the brother of the father of the second petitioner.

¶24

According to the petitioners, there was an agreement for sale of a property, which belonged to the petitioners, in favour of the de facto complainant and they had received Rs.3 lakhs as advance from the de facto complainant. The original document was handed over to the de facto complainant. Later it was said to have been lost. There was a dispute regarding the said aspect. The petitioners demanded the original document of the property. Then the de factao complaint refused to purchase the property and demanded the money back. The petitioners repaid the money but they did not get the agreement. There was altercation and push and pull between them. Bu the petitioners denied that they had assaulted the de facto complainant.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition

¶26

pointing out that specific overt acts are attributed to accused 1 and 2, who have beaten the de facto complainant with a wooden plank.

¶27

B.A.No.11/2013 :2:

¶28

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the CD and also considering the nature of allegations, it is felt that this is a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. The petition is allowed as follows:

¶29

i. The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 19.1.2013 who after interrogation shall produce them before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's court concerned, which court on application being moved by the petitioners shall release them on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the JFCM concerned.

¶30

ii. The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts, before granting bail.

¶31

iii. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him.

¶32

iv. The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶33

v. If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, of being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law.

¶34

P.BHAVADASAN,

¶35

Judge.

¶36

okb.

Hussan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hussan 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

Paul Durai Vs State of Kerala

Leela @ Kunja Vs the State of Kerala

Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Mary Vs State of Kerala

Rajmohan P.M. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Adarsh Vs State of Kerala