Allowed

Faijas.v.v v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Jun 2016Bail Appl./3957/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a pre-arrest bail application filed by accused persons in a riot-related offence. The court found that custodial interrogation was not essential and granted bail subject to conditions regarding reporting and restriction from leaving the district.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on executing a bond with two sureties for ₹40,000/- each, subject to conditions of reporting to the Investigating Officer, not leaving Kannur district, and not influencing

Faijas.v.v 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 P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/9TH ASHADHA, 1938 Bail Appl..No. 3957 of 2016 () ------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 605/2016 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY DATED 11-05-2016 CRIME NO. 667/2016 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION , KANNUR

¶5

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 3 TO 6:

¶6

1. FAIJAS V.V AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.MUTHALIB, VALIYA VALAPPIL HOUSE, PILAKOOL, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. AFREED A.P AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, K.P.HOUSE, AZAD BEACH VALAP, TALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. RINOSH AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.RAHEES, PUTHIYA PURAYIL, BATHERY VALAP, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. RAHEEM AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MAMOOTTY, MADAMILLATH HOUSE, AZAD BEACH ROAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------

¶7

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THALASSERY POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.

¶8

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

¶10

P.UBAID, J.

¶11

- - - - B.A.No. 3957 of 2016

¶12

- - - - Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2016

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioners herein seek pre-arrest bail under

¶15

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No. 667 of 2016 of the Thalassery Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal

¶16

Code. They are accused Nos. 3, 5, 4 and 6 respectively in the crime.

¶17

The prosecution case is that at about 8.00 p.m. on 27.3.2016, these petitioners and the other two accused assaulted the defacto complainant, and inflicted injuries on his body with the weapons with the knowledge of consequence that the injury inflicted may cause death. It is submitted that some of the petitioners herein were assaulted by the complainant and others on the same day,

¶18

B.A.No. 3957 of 2016

¶19

-2-

¶20

and that a crime has been registered by the Police with regard to the said incident as Crime No. 662 of 2016.

¶21

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.

¶22

On a perusal of the materials, I find that Crime No. 662 of 2016 is not exactly counter to this case. It must be an incident in retaliation to the incident in this Crime. Anyway, a perusal of the case diary in Crime No. 662 of 2016 shows that some of the petitioners herein had sustained injuries in an incident that happened as retaliative to this incident. In this case, the Police registered the crime under Section 308 of IPC also on the allegation that the injuries were serious in nature. I find that the complainant

¶23

B.A.No. 3957 of 2016

¶24

-3-

¶25

had not sustained any serious injury in the alleged incident. It is not known how Section 308 of IPC happened to be incorporated in the FIR. The complainant Shibin had only some contusions and abrasions over the different parts of his body. The Police has already recovered the weapons of offence. A perusal of the case diary shows that the material witnesses have already been questioned by the Police. It will suffice that the petitioners are directed to report before the Investigating Officer for interrogation if felt necessary.

¶26

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 ₹40,000/- (Rupees Fourty 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. 667 of 2016 of the Thalassery Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶27

B.A.No. 3957 of 2016

¶28

-4-

¶29

a) The petitioners shall report before

¶30

the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 11

¶31

a.m. on all Wednesdays for a period of two months.

¶32

b) The petitioners shall not leave the

¶33

limits of Kannur Revenue District, till investigation is over.

¶34

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

Faijas.v.v v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faijas.v.v 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

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Sujith Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed.C.a Vs State of Kerala

Jaffer Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Alias Ethakka Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

V.P.Prasadchandran Vs State of Kerala