Allowed

Jamnas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2013Bail Appl./5/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed to four accused alleging offences punishable under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 332 r/w 149 and PDPP Act Section 3. Court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC, permitting surrender followed by production before Judicial First Class Magistrate. Bail subject to conditions including regular reporting to Investigating Officer and prohibition on influencin

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted subject to surrender before IO, production before JFCM, execution of bond with sureties, weekly reporting, and non-interference with evidence and witnesses.

Jamnas 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/26TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 235/2012 OF THIRUVAMBADI POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶8

1. JAMNAS AGED 32 YEARS

¶9

S/O.MOHAMMED,VAYALILL NECHOLI,KUMARANELLOOR POST

¶10

KARAMOOLLA,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

2. PREMADASAN AGED 38 YEARS

¶12

S/O.KANNAMBOO,PUYYORAMMAL,KUMARANELLOOR POST KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶13

3. YOOSARI MOHAMMED AGED 26 YEARS S/O.ABDUL MAJEED,ERAKKODAN HOUSE,KOODARANHI POST THAMARASSERY,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶14

4. NAJEEB AGED 22 YEARS S/O.AHAMMED KUTTY,MAPPILA VEETTIL,KOODARANHI POST KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶17

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.235/12 OF THE TIRUVAMBADI POLICE STATION).

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

tss

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

B.A. No.5 of 2013

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2013

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.235/2012 of Tiruvambadi Police Station, who are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 332 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act.

¶26

The incident which gave rise to the crime occurred on 29.12.2012. The de facto complainant is a police officer. He was on election duty along with others. On coming to know that in a particular place there was some law and order problem, the de facto complainant, after taking permission of his superiors, proceeded to the said place. When he reached there, he was informed that the petitioners had created some problem and the group had left the place. He followed the petitioners and tracked them to a place namely, Kalpoor. When he reached there, the allegation is that the petitioners pelted stones at him and damaged the police jeep.

¶27

The petitioners would say that the allegations are baseless and they have been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. At any rate, according to them, custodial interrogation

¶28

B.A.No.5/2013 :2:

¶29

is absolutely unnecessary. The petitioners, therefore, seek prearrest bail.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor only pointed out that the police officer has been prevented from discharging his official duty.

¶31

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the CD made available and also considering the nature of allegations, etc., 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:

¶32

(1) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 23.1.2013, 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.

¶33

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

¶34

(3) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m.

¶35

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

¶36

B.A.No.5/2013 :3:

¶37

(5) If any of the conditions 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.

¶38

P.BHAVADASAN,

¶39

Judge.

¶40

okb.

Jamnas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamnas 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

T.R.Mohmmed Vs the State of Kerala

Koyotty Vs State of Kerala

Venu K. Nair Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Pratheeshan Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Babu V.G. Vs State of Kerala