Allowed

Ummar K.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Feb 2016Bail Appl./449/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed bail to the accused in Crime No. 838/2015 involving affray and assault on police. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and imposed conditions related to appearance, surety bond, and non-intimidation of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on execution of bond with two sureties for Rs.50,000/- each, deposit of Rs.3,000/- before court, and conditions of non-intimidation and appearance.

Ummar K.P 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

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/23RD MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 449 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 838/2015 OF VELLAYIL POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. UMMAR K.P., AGED 32 YEARS S/O.ASAINAR, NIHMATH MANZIL, PUTHIYAKADAVE

¶9

P.O. NADAKKAVE, CALICUT – 11.

¶10

2. FIROS N.P., AGED 33 YEARS

¶11

S/O.HAMZAKOYA, 3/3098 MADEENA HOUSE

¶12

PUTHIYAKADAVE BEACH, P.O. NADAKKAVE,

¶13

CALICUT- 11.

¶14

3. N.P. ABDU, AGED 49 YEARS

¶15

S/O.MUHAMMED, DIL HOUSE, PUTHIYAKADAVE BEACH

¶16

P.O. NADAKKAVE, CALICUT – 11.

¶17

4. N.P. HANEEFA, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.MOIDEEN KUTTY, 3/3172, PUTHIYAKADAVE BEACH

¶18

P.O. NADAKKAVE, CALICUT – 11.

¶19

5. MUHAMMED HASHIM N.P., AGED 37 YEARS

¶20

S/O.ALVAI, THANVEER HOUSE, THOPAYIL BEACH

¶21

P.O. NADAKKAVE, CALICUT-11.

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶23

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶24

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.

¶25

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y.

¶26

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶29

B.A. No.449of 2016

¶30

¶31

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Petitioners are accused Nos.5,6,9,7 & respectively in crime No.838/2015 of Vellayil police station for offences punishable under Sections 143,147,353,332,308 read with Section 149 IPC.

¶34

Allegation of the prosecution is that on 7/11/2015, while the procession of a political party was proceeding, they were intercepted by another group of political pary. When the police intervened and asked the group to disburse, petitioners herein along with others pelted stones at the police party. Thirteen police personnel sustained injuries as is evident from the wound certificates produced. Damage to the tune of Rs.50,000/- was caused to the public property.

¶35

It appears that three of the accused were arrested from the spot. Presence of the petitioners at the spot is also confirmed through the oral evidence of the remaining witnesses. Having regard to these facts, I feel that custodial

¶36

B.ANo.449/2016

¶37

¶38

interrogation of the petitioners may not be essential as such. Hence, bail can be granted to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

¶39

(i). Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on each executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶40

ii). They shall appear before the Investigating officer on all Tuesdays between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of execution of bond.

¶41

iii). Each of the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) before the court below within ten days from today. It is made clear that the amount need not be deposited simultaneously with the execution of bond and need only be deposited within the time mentioned above, though it is an essential condition for granting the bail.

¶42

(ii). They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant or his witnesses.

¶43

B.ANo.449/2016

¶44

¶45

Bail application is allowed as above.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶48

dpk

¶49

/true copy/ PS to Judge.

¶50

B.ANo.449/2016 4

Ummar K.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummar K.P 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

Mohammed Swalih Vs the State of Kerala

Nijas Vs State of Kerala

Noushad P.A. Vs State of Kerala

Hariprasad Vs State of Kerala

Zacharia Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Sujeesh.K.S Vs State of Kerala