Dismissed

Abdul Manaf v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Sept 2014Bail Appl./6405/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, the Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary given the specific allegation of an attempt to kill using an iron rod. The petition was dismissed, with the option to approach the Sessions Court remaining open.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's bail application dismissed; petitioner advised to move application for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court if eligible.

Abdul Manaf Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/29TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6405 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO. 433/2014 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER / 2ND ACCUSED :

¶8

ABDUL MANAF, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL WAHAB, KAITHAYIL HOUSE, THALAYAD (P.O.), KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN SRI.SABU GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENTS / STATE AND COMPLAINANT :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶12

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 612.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.REMA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

V.K.MOHANAN, J

¶17

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

¶18

B.A No.6405 of 2014

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2014

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.433/2014 of Balussery

¶23

Police Station and since he is apprehending arrest in the above crime, he preffered this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶24

Prosecution allegation is that on 10.07.2014 at about 8:15 p.m, the petitioners and other accused with common intention to attack the de facto complainant and her family trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and first accused assaulted the de facto complainant by pushing her down with intent to outrage her modesty. When her son-in-law interfered the second accused beat him on his head with an iron rod knowing that his act would cause his death, but somehow he could prevent the blow and escape. When the daughter of the de facto complainant tried to prevent that act the first accused beat her on her ears with hand and thus, according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sectins 452, 323, 324, 354 and 308 r/w Section 34 of the

¶25

B.A No.6405 of 2014

¶26

¶27

Indian Penal Code.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public

¶29

Prosecutor.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner is implicated in the above crime without any basis and the first accused in the very same crime has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court and therefore, there is no ground to deny anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein.

¶31

On the other hand, opposing the present petition, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the prosecution allegation it is the petitioner who attempted to blow on the son-in-law of the de facto complainant by using an iron bar whereas the allegation against the first accused in the above crime is that he had pushed down the de facto complainant and therefore, according to the Public Prosecutor, the first accused and the present petitioner, who is the second accused, are on different footing.

¶32

B.A No.6405 of 2014

¶33

¶34

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case,

¶35

according to me, the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he had used an iron rod to blow the son-in-law of the de facto complainant. If that be so, according to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary. Therefore, I am not inclined to allow this petition. If the petitioner wants to move application for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court, this order will not stand in his way.

¶36

Accordingly, the above petition stand dismissed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶39

vdv //True Copy//

¶40

P.A to judge

Abdul Manaf v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Manaf 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

Jancy Benny Vs State of Kerala

Christin P Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Hariprasad K @ Hareesh Vs Nazima Sheikh

Jaison Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.K.P.Shyamala Mukundan Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Chittar