Dismissed

Shamsudheen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Feb 2016Bail Appl./1323/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam refused to grant pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving trespass and assault. The court held that the presence of assault and trespass made it an unfit case for bail under the CrPC. However, the petitioner was advised to surrender for interrogation, after which a bail application could be considered.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail refused; petitioner permitted to surrender for interrogation and future bail to be considered before Magistrate.

Shamsudheen 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

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/6TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1323 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 81/2016 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED KURIKKAL, NAMBERTHODY HOUSE, PURAMANNUR P.O., VALANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT

¶10

SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAMDISTRICT, PIN - 683 103.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

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

B.A.No.1323 of 2016

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2016

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.81 of 2016 of Kalamassery Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 506(ii) and 457 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Prosecution alleges that on 19.01.2016 at about 2 p.m., petitioner herein along with two other persons trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, used a knife against him causing minor injuries on his body and ransacked the house. Admittedly, petitioner herein had pronounced Talaq of his wife, who later married the de facto complainant herein. Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant who has filed an application to get himself impleaded.

¶26

It appears that the defence set up by the petitioner herein is that the child born in the earlier matrimonial relationship is maintained by him and he had gone to the house of the de facto complainant to request the former wife to take care of the child

¶27

B.A.1323/16

¶28

¶29

with whom she did not communicate for some time. Even according to the counsel, no incident as alleged by the de facto complainant has taken place. However, it appears that the de facto complainant was taken to the hospital on 19.01.2016 at 3.20p.m. Even in the wound certificate, there is a reference that he was assaulted by three persons at 2 p.m on 19.01.2016. The weapon used has not been identified. The identity of the two other persons who allegedly accompanied him are yet to be ascertained. Having regard to these facts, I feel that this is not a fit case for granting the benefit of pre-arrest bail. However, in the event of petitioner surrendering before the Investigating Officer, after undergoing interrogation and recovery if any, he may be produced before the nearest magistrate at the earliest and any bail application filed by the petitioner may be considered preferably on the same day itself.

¶30

The anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

¶31

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶32

Sbna/25/2/16

¶33

True Copy

¶34

P A to Judge

Shamsudheen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamsudheen 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

Latheef Vs State of Kerala

K.Lakshmanan Vs State of Kerala

Bijo Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Kelothukandy Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Tiju Mathew Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Akkarakarathi Padmini Vs the State of Kerala