Allowed

Irshad T.M. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2013Bail Appl./7910/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to petitioners accused under Sections 307, 120B, and 34 IPC and PDPP Act for an alleged attack on the Chief Minister. The Court found no reason to refuse bail despite the ongoing investigation, subjecting them to conditions including surrender for interrogation and appearance before the magistrate if arrested.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; petitioners granted bail subject to surrender for interrogation, bond execution, and standard conditions.

Irshad T.M. 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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7910 of 2013 () ------------------------------CRIME NO. 1637/2013 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶6

PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO 8:

¶7

------------------------

¶8

IRSHAD T.M, AGED 46 YEARS S/O M.T SALIH, SUNIGHAR, THAYATHERU KANNUR

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

¶10

RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT/ STATE:

¶11

-------------------------------

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C. RESHEED

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-12-2013 ALONG WITH BA 8058/2013,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J

¶17

B.A.Nos.7910 & 8058 of 2013

¶18

Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2013

¶19

ORDER

¶20

These applications are for pre-arrest bail arising from Crime No.1637 of 2013 of the Kannur Town Police Station for various offences under Indian Penal Code and including Sections 307 and 120(B) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act, for alleged attacked on the Chief Minister at Kannur on 27-10-2013. The petitioners apprehend arrest and have filed these applications under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

B.A.No.7910 of 2013 is filed by the 8^th accused. In B.A.No.8058 of 2013, the first petitioner is accused Nos.103. There is some confusion regarding the address of petitioners 2 and 3 in B.A.No.8058 of 2013. The address given in the application do not tally with the address of the accused Nos. 46 and 107 given in the FIR and the connected records.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the

¶23

applications has submitted that case is under investigation and that these accused are required for interrogation.

¶24

Learned counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioners is not correct. It is submitted that they hail

¶25

¶26

B.A.Nos.7910 & 8058 of 2013

¶27

from places far way from the place of occurrence.

¶28

On hearing the learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor it is revealed that the role attributed to these petitioners is that they were members of the unlawful assembly. They are attempted to be roped in by virtue of Section 149 of the Penal Code.

¶29

Some of the similarly placed accused are granted relief under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C vide order dated 21-112013 in B.A.No.7737 of 2013.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel and the learned Public prosecutor, I do not find reason to refuse that relief these petitioners as well.

¶31

Resultantly, the applications are allowed as under:

¶32

a) Petitioners shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.1637 of 2013 of the Kannur town Police Station on 12-12-2013 at 10 a.m for interrogation.

¶33

b) If interrogation of the petitioners could not completed that day, they shall appear before the officer investigating the case on the day and time directed by him which the petitioners shall comply.

¶34

c) In case the petitioners are/any of them is arrested,

¶35

B.A.Nos.7910 & 8058 of 2013

¶36

¶37

they/he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

¶38

d) On such production, the petitioners shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:

¶39

i) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of any of the petitioners.

¶40

ii) Petitioners shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation at all reasonable time and place.

¶41

iii) Petitioners shall not, during the period of this bail get involved in any offence.

¶42

iv) Petitioners shall not intimidate/influence the witnesses or interfered with the investigation of the case.

¶43

v) Petitioner shall co-operate with investigating of the

¶44

case.

¶45

vi) In case any of the above conditions is violated, bail granted hereby is liable to be cancelled for which the

¶46

B.A.Nos.7910 & 8058 of 2013

¶47

¶48

investigating officer may move application before the learned magistrate (until committal of the case if any, and thereafter, before the learned Principle Sessions Judge concerned) as held

¶49

in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶52

¶53

/True Copy/ P.A. to Judge

Irshad T.M. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad T.M. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.R.Ajith Vs State of Kerala

Balagurumoorthy Karthic Kalidasan Vs the State of Kerala

N.a.Ali Vs State of Kerala

Murali Menon Vs State of Kerala

George @ Achankunju Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Faisal Vs the Sub Inspector of Police