Allowed

Muthalib v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jan 2016Bail Appl./227/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala examined a bail application seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court allowed the petition noting identical allegations to other accused already granted bail and imposed conditions including surrender and appearance before the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed subject to conditions: surrender within two weeks for interrogation, appearance on Saturdays, and prohibition from influencing witnesses.

Muthalib 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

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

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 227 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 232/2014 OF CHOKLI POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. MUTHALIB K., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, KANNOTH HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. GAFOOR C.H., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MOIDU, CHTTENTAVIDA HOUSE, PERINGATHOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SALIM V.S. SRI.H.NUJUMUDEEN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH S.I OF POLICE, CHOKLI POLICE STATION, KANNUR, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶14

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

¶15

msv/

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶17

B.A.No.227 of 2016

¶18

Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶21

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 2 & 7 in Crime No.232/2014 of Chokli police station. The said crime has been registered for offence punishable under S.143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 153(A) r/w S.149 of the IPC.

¶22

The gist of the allegation is that on 09.03.2014 at

¶23

about 9.45 p.m., the petitioners , as members of an unlawful assembly , along with other accused , trespassed into the Sree Narayana Vinjana Kendram at Aniyaram and caused damages to the various articles found therein.

¶24

B.A.No.227 of 2016 : 2 :

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that as per order dated 24.11.2015 in B.A.No.6971/2015, this Court had granted the relief of prearrest bail to accused Nos.3 to 6 & 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the allegations as against the petitioners are also identical and that there is no reason to deny the relief in view of the above aspect.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶28

After having considered the rival submissions, the

¶29

nature and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the petitioners and in view of the fact that anticipatory bail has already been granted to accused Nos.3 to 6 & 10, I am of the considered view that instant petition can be allowed by

¶30

B.A.No.227 of 2016 : 3 :

¶31

imposing appropriate conditions:

¶32

Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer within a period of two weeks from today and submit themselves for interrogation. In that event, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- each (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶33

The sureties shall produce documents to establish their identity and solvency. The Investigating Officer need not insist on the solvency certificate, but other documents can also be perused to find out whether the sureties are solvent or not.

¶34

Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 10.00 and 11.00 a.m until final report is filed.

¶35

Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶36

If any of the above conditions is violated

¶37

B.A.No.227 of 2016

¶38

: 4 :

¶39

by the petitioners, the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction is free to cancel the bail.

¶40

This application is allowed as above.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.

¶43

¶44

[True copy]

¶45

P.A to Judge

Muthalib v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthalib 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

Raphi Antony Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kanagendran Vs State of Kerala

Korah John Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs the State of Kerala

Abdulla M. Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran K Vs State of Kerala