Partly allowed

A.Salam v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jan 2016Bail Appl./7/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application filed by five accused persons in chargesheet under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326, 307 and 149. Court rejected bail for the instigator (2nd accused) who committed specific overt acts involving a knife attack, while granting bail to the remaining four accused with police interrogation conditions. Relied on the Fiction of Inquiry Statement (FIS) to distinguish lia

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail of 2nd accused dismissed. Bail granted to petitioners 2 to 5 (accused nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7) subject to appearance before IO, interrogation, and posting of bond.

A.Salam Vs the State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2016/2ND MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1078/2015 OF PAYANGADI POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 2 TO 4, 6 &7:

¶8

1. A.SALAM, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O ABBAS, ITTAPPURAM, MADAI AMSOM, VENGARA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. MUJAHID SALAM @ ABDUL SALAM K.V, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O SULAIMAN, MADAI AMSOM, MUTTAM, VENGARA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3. KOTTAKKARA RIYAS @ VALIYAKATH RIYAS, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O ASSAINAR, MADAI AMSOM, MUTTAM, VENGARA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

4. KADAVATH MUNEER, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O MUSTHAFA HAJI, MADAI AMSOM, MUTTAM, VENGARA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

5. UTHAKKAD RAFEEQ, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMAD MUSALIYAR, MADAI AMSOM, MUTTAM, VENGARA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.JOSE ANTONY

¶14

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶15

THE STATE OF KERALA, (THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYANGADI POLICE STATION, CRIME NO. 1078/15) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSEUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

B.A.No.7 of 2016

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2016

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are accused nos.2 to 4, 6 and 7 in Crime No.1078/2015 of Payangadi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 326 and 307 read with 149 of IPC.

¶24

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 31.10.2015 at 4.00 p.m., the accused formed into an unlawful assembly and attacked the de facto complainant. It is alleged that the 2^nd accused herein instigated the others to kill him, whereupon the 1^st accused stabbed him with a knife. He sustained injury and was taken to the hospital.

¶25

The wound certificate indicates that the injured had sustained one incised wound. Even in the FIS as well as in the wound certificate, the names of the persons who assaulted him are mentioned. However, the specific overtacts and use of knife is done by the 1^st accused under the leadership of 2^nd accused, the

¶26

B.A.No.7 of 2016

¶27

¶28

remaining accused have not committed any specific overtact, though they formed the unlawful assembly.

¶29

Having regard to this fact, I am not inclined to grant bail to the 1^st petitioner who is the 2^nd accused. However, the remaining accused are granted bail in part as follows:

¶30

The anticipatory bail application of the 2^nd accused namely the 1^st petitioner is dismissed.

¶31

The remaining petitioners 2 to 5 (accused nos. 3,4,6 and 7) are granted bail as follows:

¶32

(a) The petitioners shall appear before the

¶33

Investigation Officer within 10 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.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) each with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶34

(b) They shall appear before the Investigation Officer on all Wednesdays between 09.00

¶35

B.A.No.7 of 2016

¶36

¶37

a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of execution of the bond.

¶38

(c) They shall not get involved in any other

¶39

case of identical nature, involvement of which may entail seeking of cancellation of the bail.

¶40

(e) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the witnesses and shall not in any

¶41

manner interfere with the investigation.

¶42

The bail application is allowed.

¶43

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶46

A.Salam v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Salam v. the 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

Akhilnath Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Yahiya Vs State of Kerala

T J Thomas Vs State

Sujith Vs State of Kerala

Abdulrahman Vs State of Kerala