Allowed

Mohammed Habeeb v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Feb 2014Bail Appl./685/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by an accused charged under Sections 341 and 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The court granted bail subject to stringent conditions including surrender for interrogation, deposit of money, and strict reporting requirements to protect the injured complainant.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to conditions: surrender for interrogation, deposit of ₹10,000, fortnightly reporting, and strict compliance with police directions; violation may lead to bail cancellation.

Mohammed Habeeb 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 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/17TH MAGHA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 685 of 2014 () -----------------------------CRIME NO. 59/2014 OF KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

MOHAMMED HABEEB AGED 60 YEARS S/O.KHAN KUTTY, VALIYAKUNNATH HOUSE, KOVILKADAVU KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶9

RESPONDENTS: ------------

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶11

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.59 OF 2014 OF KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION KOTTAYAM DISTRICT)

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV LALIZA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶15

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

¶16

B.A.No.685 of 2014

¶17

============================ Dated this the 06^th day of February, 2014

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.59 of 2014 of the

¶20

Kanjirappally Police Station for the offences punishable under

¶21

Secs.341 and 307 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends

¶22

arrest and has filed this application.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.

¶24

It is submitted that on 16.01.2014 at about 2.45 p.m, the petitioner

¶25

and others attacked the de facto complainant with knife and

¶26

inflicted injuries including incised wound. The knife is recovered.

¶27

Learned counsel submits that the de facto complainant

¶28

and others attacked the petitioner for which Crime No.60 of 2014 is

¶29

registered by the same police for the offence punishable under

¶30

Secs.324 and 308 of the Penal Code.

¶31

B.A.No.685 of 2014

¶32

¶33

On hearing both sides, it appears to me that the

¶34

incident has arisen from a dispute concerning partition of family

¶35

property. Possibility of the incident occurring on the spur of the

¶36

moment cannot be ruled out.

¶37

Having regard to the circumstances, I am inclined to

¶38

grant relief but subject to conditions protecting the interest of the

¶39

de facto complainant who sustained injuries.

¶40

Resultantly this application is allowed as under:

¶41

(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.59 of 2014 of the Kanjirappally Police Station on 13.02.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.

¶42

(ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply.

¶43

(iii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶44

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

¶45

B.A.No.685 of 2014

¶46

¶47

(v) On such production petitioner shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for `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:

¶48

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

¶49

(b) Petitioner shall deposit `10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) in a nationalised bank in his name for a period of two years (renewable as per the order of the learned magistrate) and produce the Fixed Deposit receipt before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond.

¶50

(c) In case compensation is awarded to the de facto complainant and the petitioner is made liable, such compensation to the extent possible could be realised from the amount in deposit.

¶51

(d) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating Crime No.59 of 2014 of the Kanjirappally Police Station on every Saturday between 10a.m and 12p.m for a period of two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶52

B.A.No.685 of 2014

¶53

¶54

(e) Petitioner shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation.

¶55

(f) Petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail.

¶56

(g) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses. (h) In case the petitioner violates any of of condition Nos.(d) to (g), it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate (until committal if any, and thereafter before the learned Principal Sessions Judge concerned) for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).

¶57

Sd/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶58

Sbna

¶59

True Copy

¶60

P A to Judge

Mohammed Habeeb v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Habeeb 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

Thankan Vs State of Kerala

K.P. Sasidharan Achary Vs State of Kerala

Sudheer.v Vs State of Kerala

Pratheesh A.R. Vs State of Kerala

Shyam Mohan A.M @ Shyam Vs State of Kerala

Sathish Kumar.P Vs State of Kerala