Allowed

Abdul Razak v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2013Bail Appl./8930/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to Abdul Razak, accused under IPC Sections 489(B) & (C), holding that continued custody was unnecessary as co-accused had been acquitted. Bail was granted subject to conditions including bond execution, passport surrender, and prohibition from leaving Kerala.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to conditions including bond execution, passport surrender, and restrictions on movement and tampering with evidence.

Abdul Razak Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. BHAVADASAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/14TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl. No. 8930 of 2012 ()

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER IN BA.8040/2012 DATED 12-11-2012) (CRIME NO.595/2003 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT)

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ABDUL RAZAK, AGED 43 YEARS S/O KUNHIMOIDEEN HAJI, AJANOOR VILLAGE, KANHANGAD NOW RESIDING AT THAIVILAKAM, MADAN VILLA, AZHOOR CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI. P.M. HABEEB

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S. SREEJITH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

---------------------------------------------------BA No.8930 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 4^th day of January 2013

¶17

Order

¶18

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.595/03 of Hosdurg Police Station for having committed the offences punishable under Ss.489 (B & C) IPC. The final report was laid on 24.11.2012. Since the petitioner was absconding, a warrant was issued against him and he was arrested on 17.10.2012. The petitioner would submit that he is totally innocent and has been implicated with ulterior motives. It is pointed out by him that he was unaware of the fact that he was an accused in the case and he came to know of the same only when he received the warrant. He has been in custody from 17.10.2012 onwards. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a good part of the investigation must have been completed by now and his continued custody is unnecessary. He, therefore, seeks bail.

¶19

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 have already been acquitted after trial. The petitioner is the third accused and his case has been

¶20

BA 8930/12 2

¶21

renumbered as SC 371/11. He made available the CD for perusal.

¶22

Considering the totality of the facts and

¶23

circumstances of the case, especially in view of the fact that the other accused in the case have already been acquitted, it is felt that the continued custody of the petitioner is unnecessary. The apprehension expressed by the Investigating Agency that the petitioner is likely to abscond again, if released on bail, can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. The application is accordingly allowed and the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions :

¶24

The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶25

The learned Judge/Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, before granting bail to the petitioner.

¶26

The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court concerned. If he is not having any valid passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect.

¶27

BA 8930/12

¶28

¶29

The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without getting prior permission from the court concerned.

¶30

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

¶31

If any of the conditions is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the learned JFCM concerned on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such action as available to him in law.

¶32

P.Bhavadasan, Judge

¶33

sta

¶34

BA 8930/12 4

Abdul Razak v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Razak 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

Mrs.Kiruba John Vs State of Kerala

Kora Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Praveen Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Gafoor K.S. Vs State of Kerala

V.G Ajith Kumar Vs State of Kerala