Allowed

Shihab v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Feb 2016Bail Appl./189/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Kerala granted bail to five petitioners accused of an alleged assault under Section 308 of IPC. The court imposed specific conditions regarding interrogation, weapon threat, and future conduct.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners subject to conditions including appearance before investigating officer within ten days, bond execution, prohibition on threatening witnesses, and appearance on specified M

Shihab Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/19TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 189 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1195/2015 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ( 1 TO 5) :

¶8

1. SHIHAB

¶9

S/O.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 28 YEARS

¶10

MADALA HOUSE, PANAMANNA

¶11

ANANGANADI VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK

¶12

PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

2. RAFEEQ S/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 28 YEARS

¶14

MADALA HOUSE, PANAMANNA

¶15

ANANGANADI VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK

¶16

PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

3. NISHAD

¶18

S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 22 YEARS

¶19

MADALA HOUSE, PANAMANNA

¶20

ANANGANADI VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK

¶21

PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶22

4. RIYAZ

¶23

S/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 24 YEARS

¶24

MADALA HOUSE, PANAMANNA

¶25

ANANGANADI VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK

¶26

PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶27

5. SAFAR

¶28

S/O.MARAKKAR, AGED 24 YEARS

¶29

PERUMKULAM, PANAMANNA ANANGANADI VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK

¶30

PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶31

BY ADVS.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN

¶32

SRI.MANSOOR B.H.

¶33

...2/-

¶34

Bail Appl..No. 189 of 2016 () -2-

¶35

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE :

¶36

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

¶37

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPPALM POLICE STATION PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶38

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.

¶39

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

¶41

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶42

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 189 of 2016

¶43

¶44

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2016

¶45

O R D E R

¶46

Petitioners are accused in crime No.1195/2015 of Ottappalam police station for offences punishable under Sections 308 of IPC.

¶47

Allegation of the prosecution is that on 19/11/2015 at about 5.30.pm, while the defacto complainant was riding on a bike, he was hit from behind by the accused who were travelling in another car and thereafter hit him with iron rod. Crime was registered and the petitioners apprehend arrest. In the wound certificate there is a reference that the defacto complainant was hit with weapons. Injuries seen are abrasions on the back of the left elbow and right shoulders and swelling of 2x2x1 c.m. on the occipital area. Weapon allegedly used for the incident has also been recovered. Even though there is an allegation that first accused had hit him with sharp sword, no such corresponding injuries are seen except abrasions on the right shoulder. Learned public prosecutor submitted that

¶48

B.A.No.189/2015 2

¶49

petitioners are not involved in any other previous crime. Having regard to these facts, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

¶50

(i). Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on each executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶51

(ii). They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the witnesses.

¶52

iii). They shall appear before the Investigating officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m for two months.

¶53

iv). They shall not get involved in any other identical offence and the involvement if any, will be a ground for seeking cancellation of bail.

¶54

Bail application is allowed. Sd/-

¶55

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶56

dpk

¶57

/true copy/PS to Judge

¶58

B.A.No.189/2015 3

Shihab v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shihab 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

Jithu @ Jithin Lal Vs State of Kerala

Binoy Raj Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Mathews Stephen Vs State of Kerala

Bijeesh Vs State of Kerala

S.Pradeep Vs State of Kerala