Allowed

Rabiyath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jan 2016Bail Appl./12/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application for accused persons charged with offences under Sections 143, 147, 332, 353 read with 149 of IPC for trespassing, assaulting a village officer, and ransacking a village office, imposing specific conditions including bond money and appearance dates.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to execution of bond of Rs. 40,000 with two sureties for same sum, appearance before IO within 10 days and on Tuesdays for two months, and non-interference with witnesses.

Rabiyath Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/23RD POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 12 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 2841/2015 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 3:

¶8

----------------------------------------------

¶9

1. RABIYATH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KOMBAZENATH KUNURANGAN, KOMBANEZHATH HOUSE, KOOLIMUTTOM DESOM AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2. JISAM @ NIZAMUDHEEN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SIDDIQUE, CHENDAMANGALATH HOUSE, KOOLIMUTTOM DESOM AND VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶13

-----------------------------------

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

msv/

¶18

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶19

B.A.No. 12 of 2016

¶20

Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2016

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners are accused nos. 1 and 3 in Crime No.2841/2015 of Mathilakom Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 332, 353 read with 149 of IPC.

¶23

The allegation of the prosecution is that, on 16.12.2015 at about 4.00 p.m., the accused nos.1 to 7 trespassed into the Village Office of Kalimuttom and the 1^st accused grabbed the collar of the de facto complainant and pulled him down and the 2^nd accused kicked him on the abdomen. It is further alleged that they caused damage to the documents kept in the office. Apprehending arrest, the petitioners have sought for bail.

¶24

The de facto complainant was taken by the hospital and seen by the Doctor on the same day at 6.15

¶25

p.m., he has a complaint of pain. It is stated that few people have trespassed into the office and ransack the house. No visible injury is caused, though there was an allegation of impairment of hearing.

¶26

¶27

B.A.No. 12 of 2016

¶28

The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Annexure-A1 which is a complaint submitted by the locals on 04.12.2015 touching upon the functioning of the Village Office. Though the conduct of the petitioners in trespassing into the Village Office, assaulting the Village Officer and ransacking the village office cannot be justified. It appears that it was as a sequel to a grievance which they were entertaining. Further, the allegation against the petitioners are to be established through the oral testimony of the eye witnesses.

¶29

Having considered these, I feel that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not warranted and they can be granted bail subject to the following conditions:

¶30

(a) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today and offer for interrogation. Thereafter, he shall be released on executing a sum of `40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum.

¶31

B.A.No. 12 of 2016

¶32

¶33

(b) They shall appear before the Investigating

¶34

Officer on all Tuesdays between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of releasing them on the execution of bond as above.

¶35

(c) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the witnesses and shall also not interfere with the course of investigation.

¶36

The bail application is allowed.

¶37

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶40

Rabiyath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabiyath 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Badusha Vs State of Kerala

Rameshan K. Vs State of Kerala

Dijeeh P.D @ Kannan Vs State of Kerala

Sabu Vs State of Kerala

K.M. Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala