Allowed

Afsal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Oct 2015Crl.MC/6677/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order allows a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an anticipatory bail order. The High Court modified the condition requiring a bank guarantee, directing the lower court to permit the petitioner to offer property as alternative security for the required amount.

What did the court decide?

Condition No.3 of the lower court order was modified to enable the petitioner to offer property as security instead of a bank guarantee.

Afsal Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/21ST ASWINA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6677 of 2015 ()

¶6

CMP 324/2015 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE’S COURT, MALAPPURAM

¶7

CRIME NO. 596/2014 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

AFSAL, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMEDALI, PERUNNAMKUNNATH HOUSE, KARASSERY, MUKKAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 6677 of 2015 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE AI. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.3.15 IN CRL.M.P. 324/15 IN VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.596 OF 2014 ON THE FILES OF THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM.

¶19

RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES:

NIL

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge

DSV/17/10/15

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.M.C. No. 6677 of 2015

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2015

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶31

Condition No.3 in Annexure-AI order passed by the court below is under challenge. It seems that the court below has ordered security by way of bank guarantee. The court below ought to have granted an option to the petitioner to offer

¶32

the property also as security instead of bank guarantee. By giving such an opportunity to the petitioner, Condition No.3 in Annexure-AI order is liable to be modified.

¶33

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Condition No.3 in Annexure-AI is modified, by enabling the petitioner to offer property also as security for an amount of ₹1,16,000/- instead of bank guarantee.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

B.KEMAL PASHA JUDGE

¶36

DSV/13/10/15 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge

Afsal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afsal 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

VI Usman Vs State of Kerala

G.Peethambabran Vs State of Kerala

P.J.Sunny Vs State of Kerala

S.Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala

Eramakk Veettil Puthiyakath Beevikutty Vs State of Kerala

Babu @ Hari Ramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala