Allowed

Mustaffa v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jan 2014Crl.MC/394/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Case involved petitioners who were bail letters on charges under the Explosive Substances Act. Their visa expiration necessitated travel abroad for renewal, which was initially denied by the lower court. The High Court allowed the bail case, quashed the lower court's order, and directed the release of passports to enable travel abroad.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C.No.394 of 2014 allowed; Annexure-B order quashed; Petitioners permitted to go abroad; Passport released for visa stamping; Bail condition No.5 deleted.

Mustaffa 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 HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/30TH POUSHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 394 of 2014

¶6

C.M.P NO.3875/2013 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY. CRIME NO. 734/2013 OF KOLAVALLUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR.

¶7

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.6,7&8:

¶8

1. MUSTAFFA.K., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O AZIZ, MOOSA, KUTTIYIL HOUSE, TRIPANGOTTUR AMSOM, CENTRE POYILOOR.

¶9

2. ASHRAF, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O IBRAHIM, KULANGANATH HOUSE, TRIPANGOTTUR AMSOM, CENTRE POYILOOR.

¶10

3. MANZOOR, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O MAHAMOOD, MANDODIYANTAVIDE HOUSE, TRIPANGOTTUR AMSOM, CENTRE POYILOOR.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.), SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN, SRI.V.C.SARATH.

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOLAVALLUR.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV. SMT. S.HYMA.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 394 of 2014

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)'ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A.NO.7022/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, DATED 07.11.2013.

¶21

ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P.NO.3875/2013 OF THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY DATED 10.12.2013 IN CRL.M.C. NO.743/2013 OF THE KOLAVALLUR POLICE STATION.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

Crl.M.C.No.394 of 2014

¶29

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2014

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Petitioners are accused Nos.6 to 8 in Crime No.743 of 2013 of the Kolavallur Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 3 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. This Court vide order dated 07.11.2013 granted bail to all the petitioners subject to conditions. Condition Nos.3 & 5 reads as follows :

¶32

It is further alleged that on the investigation based on the mobile phones of A1 and A2, A5 was arrested. On questioning of A5, it is alleged that A5 to A8 had approached A1 to A4 to make country bombs to be used to set score for political vengeance. It is also alleged that A5 to A8 gave `5,000/- and supplied materials to A1 and A2 to make country bombs. Consequently, A5 to A8 were also arrayed as accused and further report was filed adding Secs.4 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act.

¶33

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the applicants are arraigned as A5 to A8 on the basis of the facts revealed from the investigation after the arrest of A1 to A4. It is the case of the prosecution that A1 to A4 were engaged in the manufacturing of bombs for the requirement of A5 to A8 under their instruction. They were arrested on 08.10.2013 and one month has been elapsed and the Investigating Officer has got sufficient time to conduct proper investigation. I am of the opinion that further judicial custody is not necessary, if the applicants are ready to co-operate with the investigation with stringent conditions.

¶34

Crl.M.C.No.394 of 2014

¶35

¶36

2.The petitioners surrendered their passports and complied with all the conditions imposed. Petitioners Visa expired on 23.12.2013, 04.01.2014 and 19.12.2013 respectively. It is submitted that, if they are not permitted to travel abroad immediately, and allowed them to renew the Visa, they will lose the job and the same will cause irreparable injury and hardship to the petitioners. The petitioners filed C.M.P.No.3875 of 2013 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery seeking permission to travel abroad and allowing them to renew the Visa. Vide order dated 10.12.2013, copy marked as Annexure-B, the court below rejected the permission to travel abroad. For the reasons stated by the petitioners it is become just and necessary to release the passport so that the petitioners can travel abroad and continue his job there.

¶37

Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-B order is quashed. The petitioners are permitted to go abroad. There will be a direction to the learned Magistrate to release the

¶38

Crl.M.C.No.394 of 2014

¶39

¶40

passport to the petitioners for the purpose of stamping Visa and for travel abroad subject to such conditions imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Accordingly, the condition No.5 in the bail order is deleted.

¶41

sd/HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE

¶42

AMV

Mustaffa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustaffa 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

Rejitha Vs Canara Bank

Salimen @ Joy Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ashif Vs State of Kerala

K.C.Sreelal Vs Sub Inspector

Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Shiras Vs State of Kerala