High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by six accused persons in a case involving arson and unlawful assembly linked to political rivalry, ruling such relief was not in the public interest.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioners allowed to surrender for regular bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/12TH ASWINA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 6896 of 2016
CRIME NO. 467/2016 OF THANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM -----------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2 TO 6:
1. ARSHAD, S/O.SAITHAMOL, PALLIMANTE PURAKKAL, UNNIYAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN 676505.
2. RAFEEQUE, S/O.SAITHAMOL, PALLIMANTE PURAKKAL, UNNIYAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN 676505.
3. SAJID, S/O.MAJEED, PALLIMANTE PURAKKAL, UNNIYAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN 676505.
4. NOUSHAD, S/O.SAMAD, KOTTILAKATH HOUSE, PALLIMANTE PURAKKAL, UNNIYAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN 676505.
5. SHOUKATH, S/O.MUHAMMED, KOYAMUNTE PURAKKAL, PALLIMANTE PURAKKAL, UNNIYAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN 676505.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.A.JALEEL SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, (REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THANUR POLICE STATION, CR.NO.467/2016 OF THANUR POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI SAJJU.S.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.V.
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J
B.A.No.6896 of 2016
Dated this the 4th day of October, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 6 in Crime
No.467/2016 of Tanur Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 427 and 436 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.
2
B.A.No.6896 of 2016
under Section 438 Cr.P.C., that will adversely affect the law and order situation in the locality. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of allegations raised against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners.
In the result, this application stands dismissed.
However, the petitioners are at liberty to surrender
before the court concerned and apply for regular bail, if so advised. If the petitioners surrender before the court concerned and apply for regular bail after giving copy of the bail application to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in advance, the learned Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the application for bail, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.
Sd/B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
sd
// True Copy // P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners accused of attempting to set fire to a club due to political rivalry.
Whether granting anticipatory bail in this case would adversely affect the law and order situation in the locality.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
ARSHAD AND OTHERS
STATE OF KERALA
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
