Allowed

Ashraf v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jun 2014Bail Appl./2640/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the bail application of four accused persons charged with larceny. The court observed that the dispute regarding trees on the property was of a civil nature with pending suits and granted bail without requiring custody.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted bail on bonded security of Rs. 15,000 each with two sureties; ordered to surrender for interrogation.

Ashraf Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

BAIL APPL..NO. 2640 OF 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 169/2014 OF PEERUMEDU POLICE STATION , IDUKKI

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1TO 4:

¶8

1. ASHRAF AGED 40 YEARS S/O.NAGOORKANI BHAVA, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLARKARA PEERUMEDU VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

2. RAMACHANDRAN AGED 45 YEARS S/O.KUMARANKUTTY, POOVAKKULAMA HOUE KALLAR OTTAPPALAM KARA, PEERUMEDU VILLAGE PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

3. SATHAR AGED 35 YEARS S/O.AZEEZ, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLAR KARA PEERUMEDU VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶11

4. AZEEZ AGED 60 YEARS S/O.KANI, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLAR KARA PEERUMEDU VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICEM, PEERMEDU.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI V.S. SREEJITH

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶18

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

¶19

B.A. No.2640 of 2014

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 10^th day of June, 2014

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Petitioners are accused in Crime No.169 of 2014 of the Peerumedu Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 379 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed this application.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that between 13.03.2014 and 16.03.2014, the petitioners trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant and cut and removed softwood trees.

¶25

Learned counsel submitted that the allegations are not true. It is submitted that the 1^st petitioner purchased 1.50 acres in Sy.No.645/2 in the year 1998. There are suits pending between the parties regarding title and possession of the property. It is submitted that dispute involved is of a civil nature.

¶26

Having regard to the circumstances of the case and also the pendency of suits between the parties, I am satisfied that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant relief.

¶27

B.A. No. 2640 of 2014

¶28

-: 2 :-

¶29

Application is disposed of as under:

¶30

(i) Petitioners shall surrender before the Officer

¶31

investigating Crime No.169 of 2014 of the Peerumedu Police station on 17.06.2014 at 10.00 am for interrogation.

¶32

(ii) In case interrogation of the petitioners is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating Officer to direct presence of the petitioners on any other day/days and time which the petitioners shall comply.

¶33

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

¶34

(iv) On such production learned magistrate shall release the petitioners on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen 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:

¶35

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

¶36

(b) Petitioners shall report to the investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation.

¶37

¶38

B.A. No. 2640 of 2014

¶39

-: 3 :-

¶40

(d) Petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the

¶41

witnesses.

¶42

(v) In case the petitioner violates any of conditions (b) to (d), it is open to the investigating Officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).

¶43

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶44

vsv

Ashraf v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeepkumar Vs State of Kerala

Jomon @ Jomon Chandy Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh G. Nair Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Denny Vs State

Abdul Sathar Vs State of Kerala