Allowed

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

Kerala HC17 Jan 2013Bail Appl./209/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the bail application of the fourth accused, an eighteen-year-old alleged to have participated in an attack causing stab injuries. Despite opposition regarding incomplete investigation, the Court found no specific overt act attributed to him and ordered release on bonded bail with strict reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties, subject to weekly reporting and conditions against tampering.

Mohammed Hashif T.M. @ Asif Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | 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. 209 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1299/2012 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

MOHAMMED HASHIF T.M. @ ASIF, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, THERUVATH HOUSE, UBAID ROAD, THALANGARA, KASARAGOD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:-

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

B.A. No. 209 of 2013

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.1299 of 2012 of Kasaragod Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 452 and 307 rad with Section 34 I.P.C.

¶22

The incident which gave rise to the case occurred on 30.10.2012 at about 19.35 hours. The

¶23

petitioner along with the other accused in furtherance of their common intention said to have attacked the victim and caused stab injuries to him.

¶24

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to him, no overt act is attributed to him and the stab injuries were said to have been inflicted by the first accused. Petitioner has been in custody from 18.12.2012. It is also pointed out that the

¶25

first accused has already been granted bail and there is no justification in keeping the petitioner in further custody.

¶26

B.A.209/2013.

¶27

¶28

At any rate, according to him, his continued custody is unnecessary.

¶29

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application by pointing out that the investigation is not complete.

¶30

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent cannot be countenanced. But the fact remains that no specific overt act as such is attributed to the petitioner, even though he is alleged to have participated in the incident. It is also seen that the first accused, who is alleged to have inflicted injuries on the victim had already been released by the court concerned. The petitioner has been in custody from 18.12.2012. 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.

¶31

B.A.209/2013.

¶32

¶33

Therefore, this application is allowed on the

¶34

following conditions:

¶35

i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of JFCM-I, Kasargod.

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

B.A.209/2013.

¶40

¶41

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.

¶42

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶43

sb.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Hashif T.M. @ Asif 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

Maheen Kannu Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Arshad Vs State of Kerala