Disposed

Ashraf v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC11 Jun 2014Bail Appl./2715/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a bail application for accused charged with affray and voluntarily causing hurt. Rejecting pre-arrest bail due to unrecovered weapons, the court directed surrender for interrogation and outlined procedures for future bail requests.

What did the court decide?

No bail granted; directions issued for surrender for interrogation, procedure for arrest production, and timeline for future bail applications.

Ashraf Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | 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 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/21ST JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2715 of 2014 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 100/2014 OF NATTUKAL POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3, 6 & 7:

¶8

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

¶9

1. ASHARAF, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, PADUKUNDIL HOUSE, VATTAMANNAPURAM P.O., EDATANATTUKKARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK

¶10

2. SALAM, AGED 37 YEARS S/O. ALI HAJI, KAPPIL HOUSE, VATTAMANNAPURAM P.O., EDATANATTUKKARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK.

¶11

3. AJMAL, AGED 23 YEARS S/O. ALI HAJI, KAPPIL HOUSE, VATTAMANNAPURAM P.O., EDATANATTUKKARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK.

¶12

4. RIYAS, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.ABOOBACKER, VADAKKEPEEDIKA HOUSE VATTAMANNAPURAM P.O., EDATANATTUKKARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK.

¶13

5. RASHID, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SULAIMAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, VATTAMANNAPURAM P.O., EDATANATTUKKARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK.

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNNY MATHEW SRI.C.C.ANOOP SRI.T K BABU

¶15

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶16

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NATTUKAL POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SMT. LALIZA

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶22

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

¶23

Bail Appl. No.2715 of 2014

¶24

Dated this the 11^th day of June 2014

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Petitioners are accused 1 to 3, 5 and 6 in Crime No.100 of 2014 of the Nattukal Police station for the offences punishable under Secs.143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed the application.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on 16.06.2014 at about 12.30 p.m., the defacto complainant intervened when his friend, Abdulla was being assaulted and thereon, the petitioners and others attacked the defacto complainant with reaper, iron rod, iron pipe etc. and caused fracture of the little finger. It is submitted that some of the weapons are recovered but, not all.

¶28

Learned counsel submitted that all the weapons are recovered and detention of the petitioners is not

¶29

Bail Appl. No.2715 of 2014 2

¶30

required. It is also submitted that the 2^nd petitioner sustained injury in the incident due to the attack by the defacto complainant and others as revealed by annexure A- 1 case sheet.

¶31

Since it is reported that all the weapons are not recovered, I am not inclined to consider the request for pre arrest bail. Hence, I am inclined to issue directions.

¶32

The application is disposed of as under.

¶33

Petitioners shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.100 of 2014 of the Nattukal Police station on 17.06.2014 at 10.00 a.m. for interrogation.

¶34

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.

¶35

In case the petitioners are arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional

¶36

Bail Appl. No.2715 of 2014 3

¶37

magistrate the same day where it is open to the petitioners to request for bail with intimation given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned at least two working days in advance.

¶38

If custody of the petitioners is required for any purpose, it is open to the investigating officer to move application before the learned magistrate for the purpose.

¶39

Learned magistrate shall disposed of the application(s) having regard to all relevant circumstances including whether detention of any of the petitioners is required for recovery of any material object and pass appropriate orders as early as possible.

¶40

Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶41

/ True Copy /

¶42

P.A. To Judge

¶43

Ashraf v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf v. the Sub Inspector of Police

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

Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Denny Vs State

Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Sharafudheen Vs State of Kerala

S.K. Jayachandran Vs State of Kerala

Faizal P. Vs State of Kerala