Partly allowed

Ramsheed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2016Bail Appl./225/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench bail application before Kerala High Court spanning 7 accused in an affray. Court dismissed bail for 5 petitioners due to specific overt acts but granted conditional pre-arrest bail to remaining 2 petitioners accused of general charges.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail allowed conditionally for Petitioners 3 and 7; dismissed for Petitioners 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Conditions include interrogation, attendance, and no intimidation.

Ramsheed 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

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/13TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 225 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 3/2016 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 7:

¶8

1. RAMSHEED N.V., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. KOYAMON, MUNDUPURATHU HOUSE, PARANNOR P.O., NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

2. MITHILESH, S/O.BALAN, AGED 24 YEARS, KOODATHANKANDIYIL HOUSE, PARANNOR P.O., NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

3. NITHIN. K., S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 24 YEARS, KONNADI HOUSE, PARANNOR P.O., NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶11

4. NAVAF P.M., S/O.ASIF, AGED 17 YEARS, PULIKKALAKANDY HOUSE, UNNIKKULAM P.O., EYYAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶12

5. ARJUN K.K., S/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 20 YEARS, KOODATHAMKANDIYIL HOUSE, PARAMOODU P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶13

6. NIKHIL M.M., S/O.RAMANKUTTY, AGED 20 YEARS, MUCHILADY MEETHAL HOUSE, NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶14

7. ABDUL JASSIR, S/O.ABDUL JALEEL, AGED 20/16, THALIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARANNOOR P.O., NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR, SRI.M.S.DILEEP, SMT.RESMI THOMAS.

¶16

Bail Appl..No. 225 of 2016

¶17

RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶18

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

¶19

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y. LALIZA.

¶20

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

rs.

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

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

B.A.No.225 of 2016

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2016

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.3 of 2016 of Koduvally Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 308, 452, 506 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 01.01.2016 at about 1.15a.m., the accused formed into an unlawful assembly armed with iron pipe and rafters and attacked the de facto complainant. He was taken to the hospital and complaint was laid. Petitioners, contending that they are sought to be falsely implicated and are innocent of the crime, seeks bail.

¶30

The wound certificate shows that the injured was taken

¶31

to the hospital and seen by the doctor at 2.15a.m. He had sustained six injuries, a lacerated wound 1.5x1.5x over left side forehead, contusion 10x3 cm over right scapular region, contusion 10x4cm over back, contusion 3x4cm right shoulder, lacerated wound right elbow 3x2cm and tenderness of left forearm. Specific overt acts and use of arms are attributed to the first petitioner (second accused), second petitioner (fourth accused), fifth accused

¶32

B.A.225 /16

¶33

¶34

(sixth accused),sixth petitioner (fifth accused) and fourth petitioner (third accused). No specific overt act is attributed to the third petitioner (seventh accused) and the seventh petitioner (first accused). Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to these petitioners subject to the following conditions.

¶35

I. The pre-arrest bail application of petitioners 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are dismissed.

¶36

II. The pre-arrest bail application of petitioners 3 and 7 who are accused Nos.7 and 1 are allowed as follows: (i) Each of the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. If he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶37

(ii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. for a period of one month from the date of execution of the bond as above.

¶38

(iii) They shall not get involved in any other identical offence and shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or his witnesses.

¶39

The anticipatory bail application is allowed in part as above.

¶40

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶41

Sbna/2/2/16

¶42

True Copy

¶43

P A to Judge

Ramsheed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsheed 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

Muhammed Shahid Vs State of Kerala

Baburaj Vs State of Kerala

Jithin Kurian Vs State of Kerala

Raju @ Kochumon Vs State of Kerala

Surendran.K.M Vs the State of Kerala

Gijeesh G. Varghese Vs State of Kerala