Allowed

M.C. Aboobaker v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jul 2016Bail Appl./3180/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed pre-arrest bail for accused Nos. 7 and 8 in an unlawful gun possession case under Arms Act. Held that no definite material implicates them; investigation is preliminary. Released bond subject to reporting, local limit, and witness non-influence conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail via bond with two solvent sureties for ₹50,000 each; conditions include weekly reporting, staying within Balussery area, and avoiding contact with witnesses.

M.C. Aboobaker Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2016/7TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3180 of 2016 () -------------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO. 656/2013 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/7TH AND 8TH ACCUSED:

¶8

1. M.C. ABOOBAKER

¶9

AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED HAJI, MOOKUNNAM PARAMBIL, KUNNAMKULAM, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

2. PREMRAJAN .U

¶11

AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, ULLATTUCHELIL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN SRI.K.NIRMALAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶14

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REMA R.

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

P.UBAID, J.

¶19

- - - - B.A.No. 3180 of 2016

¶20

- - - - Dated this the 29^th day of July, 2016

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners herein seek pre-arrest bail under

¶23

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No. 656 of 2013 of the Balussery Police Station, registered under Sections 3 and 25(I-B)(a) of the Arms Act. The petitioners are the accused Nos. 7 and 8 in the above crime.

¶24

The crime relates to the seizure of two guns

¶25

from the possession of the accused Nos. 1 to 3. While they were riding on a motor cycle with gun, they were intercepted by the Police. On finding that one of the guns was being unauthorizedly possessed by them, they were arrested on the spot, and guns were seized as per mahazar. Later, eight persons were arraigned as accused, including these two petitioners.

¶26

B.A.No. 3180 of 2016

¶27

-2-

¶28

This application for pre-arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is at the preliminary stage, that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused are now released, they will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶29

It appears that the other accused were arraigned on the basis of the statements given by the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in custody. As regards the legal value of a statement or confession made by a co-accused against another accused, the position stands settled. Anyway, it is alleged that one of the two guns is an unlicensed one, and the accused Nos. 1 to 3 obtained the said gun from one of the petitioners. But such an allegation does not have any solid basis. It appears that the Police has not so far been able to collect any definite material showing the complicity of these two petitioners in the alleged transaction. The

¶30

B.A.No. 3180 of 2016

¶31

-3-

¶32

persons who were found possessing gun illegally, are the accused Nos. 1 to 3. They were arrested on the spot, and the contraband articles were seized as per mahazar. It appears that on the basis of the statements given by one or the other, the Police started arraigning one after the other as supplemental accused. This deserves comments. Anyway, on a perusal of the case diary, I find nothing definite to implicate these petitioners. Their role or complicity is yet to be detected. It would be inappropriate in the above circumstances to deny them pre-arrest bail or to detain them in custody.

¶33

In the result, this petition for pre-arrest bail is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties for ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 656 of 2013 of the Balussery Police Station. Bail

¶34

B.A.No. 3180 of 2016

¶35

-4-

¶36

is granted on condition that;

¶37

a) The petitioners shall report before

¶38

the investigating officer between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Saturdays for a period of two months.

¶39

b) The petitioners shall not leave the limits of Balussery Police Station for a period of two months.

¶40

c) The petitioners shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or they shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

B.A.No. 3180 of 2016

¶47

-5-

¶48

P.UBAID, J.

¶49

- - - - B.A.No. 3180 of 2016

¶50

¶51

Dated this the 09^th day of June, 2016

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The allegation herein is unlawful possession of a gun. The said gun was seized from the possession of the accused Nos. 1 to 3, while they were travelling on a motor cycle. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 7 and 8. The Investigating Officer will have to explain how other persons than accused Nos. 1 to 3 happened to be arraigned as accused, when the allegation is practically against three.

¶54

As an interim measure, arrest of the petitioners will stand deferred for a period of two weeks.

Post on 15.3.2016.

P.UBAID

JUDGE

M.C. Aboobaker v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C. Aboobaker 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

Murali Menon Vs State of Kerala

K.R.Ranajith Vs State of Kerala

Radhakrishnan Chalakad Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh Vs State of Kerala

C R Venugopalan Vs State of Kerala

Shamla Beevi Vs State of Kerala