Dismissed

Muhammed Sabith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Aug 2016Bail Appl./5994/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two connected bail applications, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam examined a request for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court found the petitioner to be a member of an organized criminal gang and held that his release would likely lead to the commission of similar offences and obstruct the investigation into five registered crimes. Accordingly, the applications were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed; petitioner detained in custody.

Muhammed Sabith Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/3RD BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5994 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1701/2016 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2 :

¶8

MUHAMMED SABITH,

¶9

AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOUISUDHEEN, MISRIYA MANZIL, 4TH MILE, CHEKKALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE :

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CRIME NO.1701 OF 2016 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -682 031.

¶14

BY SRI.C.SREEDHARAN, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-08-2016, ALONG WITH BA.NO. 6000 OF 2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

P. UBAID, J

¶18

B.A.Nos.5994 & 6000 of 2016

¶19

Dated this the 25^th day of August, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner is the same in these two applications. He is said to be a member of a gang of six persons engaged in organised crimes of cheating and robbery. So far, five crimes have been registered against him and the other members of the gang. Those are Crime Nos.1701/2016 and 1731/2016 of

¶22

the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, 1688/2016 and 550/2016 of the Kasaragod Town Police Station, and 96/2016 of the Kannur Town Police Station. However, he seeks bail only in Crime Nos. 1701/2016 and 1731/2016 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the police has arrested six persons as members of the said gang committing such organised crimes. All of them are now in judicial custody. The petitioner alone seeks regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶23

On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the materials, I find it really unsafe and inappropriate to release the petitioner on bail, at this stage. There is no doubt that if

¶24

¶25

B.A.Nos.5994 & 6000 of 2016

¶26

he is released on bail, he will commit similar offences. Involvement of the others also has to be detected by thorough investigation. There is no doubt, that if the petitioner is released, he will definitely obstruct the process of investigation. If he is released, the others also will come forward to claim bail. His detention in custody is felt absolutely necessary in the interest of a fair investigation in the pending crimes; at present five in number.

¶27

In the result, these two applications are dismissed.

Sd/P.UBAID, JUDGE

// True Copy //

P.A. to Judge

Muhammed Sabith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Sabith 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

Manju Vs State of Kerala

Linto Kurian Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

John George Vs the Station House Officer ,Halasuru Police Station

Abdul Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Noufal Vs the State of Kerala