Allowed

Shabeer @ Sabeer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Apr 2013Bail Appl./2265/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to four accused persons charged with robbery and criminal conspiracy under the IPC. The court imposed conditions regarding bonds, weekly reporting, abstaining from influencing witnesses, and not leaving the state pending investigation or until four months.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners (Accused A4-A6) subject to execution of bonds, weekly reporting, non-interference with witnesses, and restriction on leaving the state.

Shabeer @ Sabeer 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 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2013/12th CHAITHRA 1935 Bail Appl..No. 2265 of 2013 () -------------------------------

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC.463/2013 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 12-03-2013 CRIME NO. 394/2013 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶6

ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED 4 - 6: -----------------------------------------------1. SHABEER @ SABEER AGED 26 YEARS S/O. YOUSEF, THOPILAPARAMBU, MANNAM P.O NORTH PARAVUR.

¶7

ABDUL RAHMAN @ SREEJITH AGED 25 YEARS S/O.GOPI, MATHARUPARAMBIL, VANIYAEKKADU NORTH PARAVUR.

¶8

SHAMEER AGED 27 YEARS S/O. ASHARAF, THOPPILAPARAMBIL, MANNAM P.O. NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

¶9

COMPLAINANT(S)/STATE:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031 (CRIME NO. 394/2013 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM DISTRICT)

¶11

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SERENA GEORGE

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-032013, THE COURT ON 2/4/13 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,J.

¶14

================================

¶15

B.A.2265 OF 2013

¶16

================================

¶17

Dated this the 2nd day of April,2013

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioners are some among the accused (A4 to A6) in Crime No.394/2013 of Kalamassery Police Station registered for offences punishable under section 120B and 379 read with section 34 IPC. The investigation of that crime is now in progress. Petitioners have filed

¶20

the above petition for their release on bail.

¶21

The allegation is that pursuant to a

¶22

criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons, six in number, on 24.2.2013 they committed robbery of a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs kept in the cabin of a motor vehicle, in which de

¶23

facto complainant was the driver and first

¶24

B.A.2265/2013 2

¶25

accused, a cleaner. That vehicle was used for the purpose of collecting waste from butchers shops. On prior information given by first accused, pursuant to criminal conspiracy by all accused to commit the offence, the motor vehicle was followed by two other accused A2 and A3 in a bike. When the vehicle was stopped beside a butcher's shop and de facto complainant, driver, got down to collect waste from that shop one of the riders in the

¶26

bike, it is alleged, after getting down from that bike, took the cash kept in the cabin of lorry, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. De facto complainant returning from the butcher's shop witnessing the robbery raised a hue and cry and passers-by chased the riders. One among the riders was caught and the other ran away and escaped. Culprit apprehended

¶27

was handed over to Police. Crime registered, and custodial interrogation of the accused

¶28

apprehended, disclosed complicity of other accused, and criminal conspiracy hatched by all the accused to commit the robbery. Other accused

¶29

B.A.2265/2013

¶30

¶31

persons involved in the crime were also apprehended the same day. On production before magistrate all of them were remanded to judicial custody.

¶32

Learned counsel for petitioners submits

¶33

they have been falsely implicated in the crime. They have been made co-accused solely for the reason that they have some acquaintance with the other accused, according to counsel. Allegation that they criminally conspired with other accused (A1 to A3) to commit robbery of cash kept in the cabin of lorry while it was used for collecting waste from butchers shop is not worthy of any consideration, is the submission of counsel. Period of detention undergone by petitioners(A4 to A6) eversince their arrest, from 24/2/2013, is also pointed out by counsel to urge for their release on bail subject to conditions as deemed fit and proper.

¶34

4.Opposing the application learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation conducted so far and materials collected have disclosed

¶35

B.A.2265/2013

¶36

¶37

complicity of these petitioners with other accused in the commission of offences imputed, and their release at this stage will not be conducive to the justice.

¶38

Case diary has been produced for my perusal. From the allegations raised, and also materials gathered by investigating agency, it is seen, these petitioners are proceeded for having criminally conspired with A1 to A3 in committing robbery. At this stage it may not be possible to hold that they have been falsely implicated in the crime as contended by their counsel. Statements recorded from some among accused persons apprehended are relied by investigating agency to implicate these petitioners as having conspired with those directly involved in the commission of robbery. On the facts and circumstances presented and also taking note of the period of detention undergone by petitioners, I find they can be released on bail at this stage subject to following conditions safeguarding the

B.A.2265/2013

investigation.

1.Petitioners (A4 to A6) shall execute a bond for Rs.20,000/each, with two solvent sureties for the like sum, by each of them, to the satisfaction of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva.

¶43

Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer at the Station once in a week, on every Monday, at a time between 10 a.m and 12 noon, for a period of eight weeks or completion of investigation of crime and filing of final report, whichever is earlier.

¶44

Petitioners shall not intimidate, terrorize or

¶45

B.A.2265/2013 6

¶46

influence any of the witnesses connected with the crime nor do any act or make any attempt to obliterate the evidence of the crime. 4. Petitioners shall not leave the State for a period of four months, or till the completion of investigation, whichever is earlier.

¶47

Petition allowed.

¶48

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶49

tpl/-

¶50

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

W.P.(C).NO. /06

JUDGMENT

tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶55

W.P.(C).NO. /06

¶56

JUDGMENT

¶57

SEPTEMBER,2006

Shabeer @ Sabeer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabeer @ Sabeer 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishob Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Anshad Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sameer @ Akshay Vs State of Kerala

Byju Vs State of Kerala

Padmavathi Amma Vs State of Kerala

Shanid T. Vs the State of Kerala