Partly allowed

Riyas Kaleel v. State Ofkerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2016Bail Appl./6065/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application survived by the High Court of Kerala regarding offences under various IPC sections. The Court dismissed the application for the first petitioner due to his prior criminal history and use of a weapon, allowing it for the remaining three petitioners on conditional bail.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed for the first petitioner but allowed for petitioner Nos.2 to 4, who were directed to execute a bond of Rs.30,000/- each with sureties.

Riyas Kaleel Vs State Ofkerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/12TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6065 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.355/2016 OF CHOMBALA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:

¶8

1. RIYAS KALEEL, S/O.MOHAMMED, VALIYAPARAMBATH, AZHIYUR, CHOMBALA, KOZHIKODE RURAL.

¶9

2. YAKKOB, PUTHENPURAYIL, SALMAS, AZHIYUR, CHOMBALA, KOZHIKODE RURAL.

¶10

3. UNIZ, CHILLIPARAMBATH, AZHIYUR, CHOMBALA, KOZHIKODE RURAL.

¶11

4. RAFSAL RAYAROTH, AZHIYUR, CHOMBALA, KOZHIKKODE RURAL.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K.

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT.:

¶14

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

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶19

==========================================

¶20

B.A No.6065 of 2016

¶21

========================================== Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2016

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.355

¶24

of 2016 of Chombala Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

The prosecution allegation is that on 11.07.2016 at about 10.20 p.m. while the defacto complainant was walking along the flyover on the eastern side of Mahe Railway Station, the petitioner and the other accused in furtherance of their common object wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and thereafter, the first accused gave blow on the defacto complainant with an iron rod. The other accused beat him with hands.

¶26

The petitioners have filed this application under

¶27

Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor has no serious

¶30

objection in allowing this application as regards petitioner Nos.2 to 4.

¶31

¶32

B.A No.6065 of 2016

¶33

However, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application as regards the first petitioner stating that the first petitioner is involved in eleven other crimes of similar nature. It appears that the first petitioner inflicted injury on the defacto complainant with an iron rod causing fracture of the nasal bone. The first petitioner, who is the first accused in the crime, is also involved in eleven other crimes of similar nature. However, the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are not involved in any other offence. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 also did not use any weapon to attack the defacto complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case where an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 will be justified. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case where an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the first petitioner will be justified.

¶34

In the result, this application stands dismissed as regards the first petitioner, and allowed as regards petitioner Nos.2 to 4, and the respondent is directed to release petitioner Nos.2 to 4 on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.355 of 2016 of the Chombala Police Station on condition of each of the petitioners

¶35

¶36

B.A No.6065 of 2016

¶37

executing a bond for Rs.30,000/- each (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Chombala Police Station before whom petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following further conditions;

¶38

i. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall report before

¶39

the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for three months, and thereafter as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶40

ii. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall not intimidate

¶41

or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶42

iii. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall not get

¶43

involved in any other offence of similar nature while on bail.

¶44

Sd/- B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

JUDGE

rkj

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Riyas Kaleel v. State Ofkerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyas Kaleel v. State Ofkerala

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

Shahinsad Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala

Francis Vs State of Kerala

Sajin Vs State of Kerala

Manoj George Vs State of Kerala

Sarockey Nelson Vs the Sub Inspector of Police