Allowed

Zakeer Hussain v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jul 2016Bail Appl./5345/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding a deliberate attempt to life case, the High Court of Kerala allowed the petition, granting release on bail with two sureties. The court imposed strict conditions including weekly reporting and restriction from leaving the jurisdiction to ensure investigation smoothness.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with two sureties for Rs. 50,000 each, conditioned on reporting weekly and not leaving jurisdiction or influencing witnesses.

Zakeer Hussain 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

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2016/3RD SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5345 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 770/2016 OF KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

ZAKEER HUSSAIN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, KATTUPPARA HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY PO., KOTTAYAM-686 507.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.(CRIME NO. 770/2016 OF KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DIST.)

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

B.A No.5345 of 2016

¶18

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶19

Dated this the 25^th July, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.770/2016 of the Kanjirappally Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 149, 447, 323, 324, 294(b), 506 (1), 341, 325, 354 and 354 (b) of the Indian Penal Code. The crime was initially registered under Section 307 I.P.C. Later, Section 307 I.P.C was deleted, and now the investigation is proceeding under Sections 308 and 324 I.P.C. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 15.7.2016. He seeks regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶22

The prosecution case is that, at about 6.30 p.m on 29.6.2016, the petitioner herein made an attempt on the life of the complainant by hitting him down with his vehicle while the complainant was walking along the side of the road.

¶23

This application for regular bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is still in progress, and that if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the investigation.

¶24

B.A No.5345 of 2016

¶25

¶26

On a perusal of the materials, I find that it is a matter for decision on trial whether the petitioner herein hit down the complainant with his vehicle with the intention of only causing injuries to him, or with the knowledge that such injuries may cause death. Initially, the police registered the crime under Section 307 I.P.C, regarding which observations were made by this Court in the order dated 11.7.2016 in B.A No.5018 of 2016. Thereafter, the said section was deleted, and now the investigation is proceeding under Section 308 I.P.C. Whether this is a clear case under Section 308 I.P.C, is a matter for probe during trial. I find that the Investigating Officer has already questioned the material witnesses, and has collected the necessary materials for a prosecution. I do not find the necessity of continued detention of the petitioner in custody. However, some reasonable conditions for bail are felt necessary in the particular facts and circumstances.

¶27

In the result, this application for bail is allowed. The petitioner will be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty₹

¶28

B.A No.5345 of 2016

¶29

¶30

thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶31

a. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 am and 11 a.m on all Saturdays for a period of two months.

¶32

b. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdictional limits of the Kanjirappally Police Station for a period of two months.

¶33

c. The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the witnesses and he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

Sd/-

P.UBAID JUDGE

/True copy/

P.S to Judge

Zakeer Hussain v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zakeer Hussain 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

Thressiamma Vs State of Kerala

E K Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Bijimon @ Shijin Vs State of Kerala

S.J.Satheesh Vs State of Kerala

Safeer Vs State of Kerala