Allowed

Riyas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jul 2016Bail Appl./4740/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a pre-arrest bail application for a petitioner accused of assault. The court observed that allegations were doubtful and the accused likely acted in self-defense against a False Pretext-based attempt on his life, facilitating release on surety.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on condition of reporting weekly and not contacting witnesses.

Riyas 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2016/29TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4740 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 411/2016 OF PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶7

APPLICANT(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2 :

¶8

RIYAS AHMED, S/O.MUHAMMED IQBAL, 135/95, NACHIMUTHU GOUNDER STREET, POLLACHI TALUK, COIMBATORE.

¶9

MUHAMMED IQBAL,

¶10

S/O.FAKKEER MUHAMMED, 135/95, NACHIMUTHU GOUNDER STREET, POLLACHI TALUK, COIMBATORE.

¶11

BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SMT.MITHA SUDHINDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------B.A No.4740 of 2016 ---------------------------------------

¶18

Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioners herein seek pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.411/2016 of the Pudunagaram Police Station, initially registered under Sections 327 and 307 IPC. Later Section 307 IPC was deleted by the police and Section 308 IPC was incorporated. The alleged incident of assault occurred at the house of the complainant in this crime. The police has also registered a counter case as Crime No.410/2016.

¶21

On a perusal of the case diary in both the cases I find that the petitioners herein happened to inflict injuries on the body of the complainant in self defence. In Crime No.410/2016 the first accused is one Rajesh. The alleged incident happened at his own house. This petitioner and his father came there as invited by the said Rajesh for the sale of some gold. It appears that they were in fact brought there under some false pretext, and the alleged incident happened when Rajesh made an attempt

¶22

¶23

B.A No.4740 of 2016

¶24

to do away with the first petitioner herein with the object of extracting the money brought by him for the purchase of gold ornaments. In the above factual situation, where the prosecution allegations in Crime No.411/2016 are doubtful, I feel it appropriate to grant them pre arrest bail. The police report shows that the second petitioner herein stands deleted from the party array. Now the first petitioner is the sole accused in the crime. In view of the strong materials indicating that the first petitioner inflicted injuries on the body of the victim in self defence, it would be inappropriate to deny bail to him or to detain him in custody.

¶25

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner (first petitioner) is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) each to the₹ satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No.411/2016 of the Pudunagaram Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that:

¶26

a) The first petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on

¶27

¶28

B.A No.4740 of 2016

¶29

all Wednesdays for a period of two months.

¶30

b) The first petitioner shall not in any

¶31

manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses,

¶32

or he shall not have any contact with the material

¶33

witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

Riyas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyas 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

Akhil K.S. Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Mujeeb Vs State of Kerala

Paulson K.V. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Manikandan Vs the State of Kerala

Vishnu C.C. Vs State of Kerala