Allowed

Yahu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Sept 2016Bail Appl./6073/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a pre-arrest bail application filed by accused persons charged with offenses under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 326, and 149 of the IPC. The court released the petitioners on bail with conditions, noting the investigation was practically over. The relief includes a reporting requirement to the investigating officer every Thursday for two months and restriction

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on condition of reporting to the investigating officer every Thursday for two months, staying within Meppadi local limits, and not contacting witnesses. Sureties for ₹50,000 each required

Yahu 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

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/18TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6073 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 357/2015 OF MEPPADI POLICE STATION , WAYANAD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1,2,3 & 5 :

¶8

1. YAHU

¶9

S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 47 YEARS, CHENATH HOUSE, RIPPON POST, MUPPAINAD VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD-673 577.

¶10

2. C.H.ASHRAF, S/O. PATHUMMA, AGED 42 YEARS, CHEPPANGAL HOUSE, RIPPON POST, MUPPAINAD VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD-673 577.

¶11

3. RAHIM,

¶12

S/O. I.MUHAMMED, AGED 47 YEARS, CHENATH HOUSE, RIPPON POST, MUPPAINAD VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD-673 577.

¶13

4. JABIR,

¶14

S/O. USMAN, AGED 23 YEARS. POOVALLUR HOUSE, MUPPAINAD VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD-673 577.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶17

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

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

B.A No.6073 of 2016

¶24

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶25

Dated this the 9^th September, 2016

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1,2,3 and 5 in Crime No.357 of 2015 of the Meppadi Police Station registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 326 read with 149 I.P.C. They seek pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶28

The prosecution case is that, at about 7.30 p.m on 2.8.2015, these petitioners and the other co-accused assaulted the de facto complainant due to some political enmity, and inflicted simple and grievous injuries on his body. It is submitted that one of the petitioners had also sustained injuries in the alleged incident. Annexure-A2 is the copy of the F.I.R in Crime No.351/2015. There is reason to believe that the 1^st petitioner herein had also sustained injuries in the alleged incident. The complainant had not in fact sustained any serious injury in the alleged incident. It appears that it was an open fight between two political groups, in which persons on both sides had sustained injuries. The victim was brought to the hospital

¶29

B.A No.6073 of 2016

¶30

¶31

only on 3.8.2015, but he made complaint only after four days directly to the Police. It is not known why intimation was not sent to the police from the hospital. Anyway, on a perusal of the case diary, I find that investigation is practically over.

¶32

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing bond with two solvent sureties for 50,000/-₹ (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No.357 of 2015 of the Meppadi Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that:

¶33

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Thursdays for a period of two months.

¶34

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

¶35

c) The petitioners shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or they shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶36

¶37

/True copy/ P.S to Judge

Yahu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yahu 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

Rasheed P.T. Vs State of Kerala

Mr. T. Kumaresan Vs State of Kerala

Jabiriya Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar @ Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Rajitha Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Nazeem Vs State of Kerala