Allowed

Rahman Y. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Feb 2016Bail Appl./316/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed bail to the sole accused in a case involving transportation of potassium nitrate and other items. The court held that custodial interrogation may not be warranted, granting bail subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation and execution of a surety bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's bail application allowed; bail granted on conditions including appearance for interrogation within 10 days and execution of a bond with two sureties.

Rahman Y. 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 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/4TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 316 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 709/2015 OF MANKARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

RAHMAN Y., AGED 26 YEARS S/O.YOUSUF K., PARANGODE HOUSE, KALLUR POST MANKARA, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.B.GAFOOR

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANKARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-678 613.

¶12

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C. RASHEED

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

B. A. No. 316 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 709/2015 of Mankara Police Station for offences punishable under Section 5 of Explosive Substances Act.

¶20

The allegation of the prosecution is that, on 17.12.2015 at 12 hours, the Police party intercepted a vehicle driven by the petitioner herein. On seeing the Police party, the petitioner herein escaped from the spot. After preparing the mahazar of the items contained in the vehicle, crime was registered. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner seeks bail.

¶21

It appears that, the materials which were transported were potassium nitrate, magnesium nitrate, aluminum power charcoal and another sack containing unidentified items. Relying on Annexure A, the learned counsel contended that, those articles were purchased against a bill dated 17.12.2015 from Palakkad and was being transported. The counsel further relied on Annexure A2 which was a letter issued by the Controller of Explosive of Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organisation, Government of India, to indicate that, the above articles did not

¶22

B. A. No. 316 of 2016

¶23

¶24

require licence for handling. On the strength of the above, I feel that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be warranted and bail can be granted to the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶25

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation Officer within 10 days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail, on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶26

(ii) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate

¶27

the defacto complainant or his witnesses.

¶28

(iii) He shall appear before the Investigation Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶29

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶30

/true copy/

¶31

P. A. to Judge

¶32

Rahman Y. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahman Y. 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

Rossy Vs State of Kerala

Manu Vs State of Kerala

K.R.Mohandas Vs State of Kerala

Fasna Vs State of Kerala

Najumudeen Vs State of Kerala

George Vs State of Kerala