Allowed

Jaleel v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 May 2014Bail Appl./2602/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a bail application filed by the fourth accused in a case involving the Foreigner's Act. The court deemed custodial interrogation unnecessary and granted bail conditioned on surrender for interrogation, execution of a bond, and reporting to the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted contingent on surrender for interrogation, execution of bond with sureties, reporting to IO, and conditions against further offences or witness intimidation.

Jaleel Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2014/31ST VAISAKHA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2602 of 2014 ()

¶6

***(CRIME NO. 440/2014 OF VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (CORRECTED)**

¶7

*CRIME NO.400/2014 OF VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT AS PER ORDER DATED 21/05/2014 IN CRL.M.A.NO.4739/2014

¶8

PETITIONER :

¶9

JALEEL,S/O.SULAIMAN, AGED 36 YEARS, ALUNGAPRAMBIL HOUSE, KARUMALLUR P.O., MANJALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶11

RESPONDENT :

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT)

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J

¶17

B.A.No.2602 of 2014

¶18

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2014

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner is the 4^th accused in Crime No.400 of 2014 of the Vadakkekara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 3 r/w 14 of the Foreigner's Act, 1946, Section 3 (1) (a), 10(i) and 10(ii) of the Foreigner's Order 1942 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.

¶21

Application is opposed by the learned Public

¶22

Prosecutor.

¶23

It is submitted that the petitioner engaged accused 1 to 3 of whom, accused 1 and 2 are Bangladeshi nationals who are found to be holding fake identity cards.

¶24

Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. The 3^rd accused is running a scrap unit and is understood to have engaged accused 1 and 2 who came with identity cards (later said to be discovered as fake). According to the learned counsel, allegations against the petitioner is that he had taken the building (where the scrap unit was functioning) on rent.

¶25

Having heard both sides and having regard to the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, I am inclined

¶26

B.A.No.2602 of 2014

¶27

¶28

to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant relief.

¶29

Application is allowed of as under:

¶30

(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No. 400 of 2014 of the Vadakkekara Police Station on 27.05.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.

¶31

(ii) If interrogation of the petitioner could not completed that day, he shall appear before the officer investigating the case on the day/days and time as directed by him which the petitioner shall comply.

¶32

(iii) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

¶33

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

¶34

(a) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case on every alternate Saturday between 10.00 a.m and 12.00 p.m for a period of two months or until filing of the final report whichever is earlier.

¶35

(b) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the

¶36

¶37

B.A.No.2602 of 2014

¶38

case as and when required for interrogation.

¶39

¶40

during the period of this bail.

¶41

(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the

¶42

witnesses.

¶43

(v) It is made clear that in case any of condition Nos. (a) to (d) is violated, it is open to the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving application before the learned magistrate as held in P.K. Shaji V. State

¶44

of Kerala (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 100).

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶47

¶48

/True Copy/

¶49

P.A. to Judge

Jaleel v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaleel 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

Uthaman Vs State of Kerala

V.P.Prasadu Vs the State of Kerala

Kallyani Vs the State of Kerala

K.Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Jaleel.P. Vs the State of Kerala

Sreedevi Vijayan Vs Station House Officer