Allowed

Rouf v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Feb 2016Bail Appl./482/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by the second accused charged with offences under the IPC, including unlawful assembly and grievous hurt, in a case involving serious injuries to the complainant. The court granted bail subject to strict conditions regarding bond execution, appearance, and movement restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioner on the condition of executing a bond with sureties, establishing appearance before the investigating officer periodically, and adhering to strict movement and conduct re

Rouf Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/7TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 482 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 672/2015 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :

¶8

ROUF T., S/O.THOTTI KUNHABDULLA, AGED 32/15, THOTTI HOUSE PALLIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE HOSDURG TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA (SHO BAKEL POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J. ------------------------------------------B. A. No. 482 of 2016

¶16

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2016

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No. 672/2015 of Bekal Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 308 read with 149 of IPC.

¶19

The allegation of the prosecution is that, on 15.10.2015 at 12 midnight, the petitioner herein and others formed into an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons including sword and attacked the defacto complainant. He sustained very serious injuries and was rushed to the hospital. He was arrested on 28.12.2015 and is in custody since then. He seeks bail.

¶20

The wound certificate indicates that the injured had sustained abraded contusion over the left temple (scalp), abraded contusion over the right parietal region (scalp), multiple linear contusions on the forearm, linear contusion numbering four over the back of the scapular area, avulsed laceration bone deep with near total amputation on the right thumb and cerebral concussion.

¶21

A reading of the above injuries clearly show that multiple serious injuries have been inflicted by the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that very serious injuries including injuries on the scalp and the near total amputation of the thumb was

¶22

B. A. No. 482 of 2016

¶23

¶24

also caused. The remaining accused have not been arrested.

¶25

However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has been in custody from 28.12.2015 onwards and that he is not involved in any other previous crime, though not lightly viewing the serious allegations against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, on the following very strict conditions:

¶26

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with three sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. One of the sureties shall be a close blood relative of the petitioner herein.

¶27

(ii) He shall also deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) before the Court below within a period of 15 days from the date of his release. It is made clear that, though this condition is an essential part of granting bail, it need not be deposited along with the execution of the bond but shall be deposited within the time limit prescribed above.

¶28

(iii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between

¶29

B. A. No. 482 of 2016

¶30

¶31

9.00 am and 10.00 am for a period of three months from the date of release.

¶32

(iv) Except of the compliance of the above conditions or for appearance in a court of law wherein his presence is essential, he shall not enter the limits of Bekal Police Station for a period of three months from the date of release.

¶33

(v) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant and the witnesses nor shall he interfere in the process of investigation.

¶34

(vi) He shall not get involved in any offence, breach of which may entail cancellation of bail.

¶35

Sd/SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶36

/true copy/

¶37

P. A. to Judge

¶38

Rouf v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rouf 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

Shamsudheen Vs State of Kerala

Kelothukandy Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Tiju Mathew Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Tony @ Unni Vs State of Kerala

Subeesh Vs State of Kerala

Aji Brite Vs State of Kerala