Partly allowed

Niyad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jul 2014Bail Appl./4130/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted bail conditions to accused 2 to 4 in an IPC riot case while keeping the first accused infructuous. The court directed transfer of investigation to Circle Inspector and set strict reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to accused 2-4 with ₹20,000 bond; investigation transferred to Circle Inspector; first accused bail declared infructuous.

Niyad 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

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2014/12TH ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4130 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 346/2014 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION , KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶8

NIYAD, AGED 22 YEARS

¶9

S/O MOIDU, MULLANTAKATH, BEACH ROAD

¶10

PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

ADENAN, AGED 22 YEARS

¶12

S/O ABDULLA, MUKKALAKKALAKATH, BEACH ROAD

¶13

PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

ASHKAR, AGED 21 YEARS

¶15

S/O ABDULLAKUNHI, MUKREKADAKATH, BEACH ROAD PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

MAHAROOF AGED 21 YEARS

¶17

S/O MUHAMMED, THALAKKAL PARAKK, BEACH ROAD

¶18

PUTHIYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶19

BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD

¶20

SRI.JOLLY GEORGE

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶22

STATE OF KERALA (THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PAZHAYANGADI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.346/2014) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶23

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶24

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

dlk

¶26

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J

¶27

B.A.No.4130 of 2014

¶28

Dated this the 3^rd day of July, 2014

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in Crime No.346 of 2014 of the Pazhayangadi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308, 506(i) r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed the application.

¶31

So far as the first accused is concerned, it is pointed

¶32

out by both sides that he is arrested according to the learned Public Prosecutor, as another crime was registered against him. The application to the extend it concerned the first accused has become infructuous.

¶33

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application of the accused 2 to 4. He submits that on 28.05.2014 at about 01.50 p.m., they along with the first accused trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and assaulted him and his son. The first accused assaulted the de facto complainant with iron rod. A stick also was used in the incident.

¶34

B.A.No.4130 of 2014

¶35

¶36

Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not

¶37

true. The de facto complainant is the local leader of a political party in power in the State and there are allegations that he is sexually abusing boys. A complaint was filed by the aunt of the first accused to the Circle Inspector of Police, Thaliparamba. No action was taken on that complaint under political influence. The de facto complainant abused the persons who made the complaint. These accused are falsely implicated.

¶38

At this stage I must bear in mind argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that while this application was pending, the Sub Inspector got another case registered against the first accused and took him into custody. But, now, I am not going into the correctness of the said contention. Fact remains that the first accused was arrested while this application was pending. The first accused is said to have used the iron rod against the de facto complainant. The stick allegedly used has already been recovered. Allegations as against the accused 2 to 4, it appears to me is that they assaulted the de facto complainant and his son with hands.

¶39

B.A.No.4130 of 2014

¶40

¶41

In view of the circumstances highlighted by the accused involving the de facto complainant and considering all other attending circumstances, I am satisfied that this case has to be investigated by a Senior Officer and not by the Sub Inspector. It is appropriate that the case is investigated by the Circle Inspector of Police, Thaliparamba. He shall look into all aspects including the allegations raised against the de facto complainant and proceed in the matter. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion either way in the matter.

¶42

Accused 2 to 4 are not reported to be involved in any other case. Having considered their alleged role in the present incident and considering other relevant circumstances I am inclined to think that their custodial interrogation is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant relief but subject to conditions.

¶43

Application is disposed of as under:

¶44

(I) It is directed that investigation of Crime No.346 of 2014 of the Pazhayangadi Police Station shall immediately be taken over by the Circle Inspector of Police, Thaliparamba. Necessary orders in that regard (if required) shall be passed by

¶45

¶46

B.A.No.4130 of 2014

¶47

the District Police Chief, Kannur forthwith.

¶48

(II) Request for pre-arrest bail made by the first accused in Crime No.346 of 2014 of the Pazhayangadi Police Station has become infructuous. It is open to the first accused to seek other remedies as are available to him.

¶49

(III) (i) Accused 2 to 4 shall surrender before the Circle Inspector of Police, Thaliparamba in Crime No.346 of 2014 of the Pazhayangadi Police Station on 14.07.2014 at 10.00 a.m for interrogation.

¶50

(ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the accused 2 to 4 on other day/days and time which the accused 2 to 4 shall comply.

¶51

(iii) In case arrest of the accused 2 to 4 is recorded, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

¶52

(iv) On such production the accused 2 to 4 shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on their executing bond for 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the

¶53

B.A.No.4130 of 2014

¶54

¶55

satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:

¶56

(a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of any of the accused 2 to 4.

¶57

(b) The accused 2 to 4 shall report to the Circle Inspector of Police, Thaliparamba 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.

¶58

(c) The accused 2 to 4 shall report to the Circle Inspector of Police, Thaliparamba as and when required for interrogation.

¶59

(d) The accused 2 to 4 shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail.

¶60

(e) The accused 2 to 4 shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶61

(v) In case the accused 2 to 4 or any of them violate any of condition Nos.(b) to (e), it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate (until committal of the case if any, and thereafter, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge concerned) for cancellation of the bail as held

¶62

B.A.No.4130 of 2014

¶63

¶64

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

¶65

(IV) The accused 2 to 4 shall serve a copy of this order

¶66

forthwith to the following:

¶67

(i) The Sub Inspector of Police, Pazhayangadi.

¶68

(ii) The Circle Inspector of Police, Thaliparamba.

¶69

(iii) The District Police Chief, Kannur.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶72

¶73

/True Copy/

¶74

P.A. to Judge

Niyad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niyad 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

Sajan T Koshy Vs State of Kerala

Madhusoodanan Vs the State of Kerala

Paul Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Shameer K.A. Vs State of Kerala

Jithu Vs the State of Kerala

Rahul Govind Vs State of Kerala