Allowed

Firzad Ismail v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2016Bail Appl./6917/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar allowed a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by a respondent accused in a violent assault case. The court found it a fit case for anticipatory bail due to lack of criminal record.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; respondent directed to release petitioner on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 30,000 with two sureties and complying with stated conditions.

Firzad Ismail Vs the State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | 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. 6917 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1338/2016 OF MATTANCHERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED :

¶8

FIRZAD ISMAIL,

¶9

AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. NOUSHAD, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.13/390, PANAYAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 002, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MATTANCHERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI

¶14

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

¶15

Msd.

¶16

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

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

¶18

B.A No.6917 of 2016

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.1338 of 2016 of Mattanchery Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 324, 326, 294(b), 341 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that on 23.08.2016 at about 8.30 p.m., the first accused fisted the defacto complainant

¶23

with an iron bangle on his teeth causing loss of two teeth. The second accused uttered abusive words against the defacto complainant and wrongfully restrained him. He also beat the defacto complainant with an iron rod.

¶24

The petitioner has filed this application under

¶25

Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶26

Heard.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor has no serious

¶28

objection in allowing the application. The daughter of the first

¶29

B.A No.6917 of 2016 2

¶30

petitioner was in love with the defacto complainant. The petitioner requested the defacto complainant to leave her daughter. However, the defacto complainant was not prepared for the same. This is stated to be the motive for the incident. The second accused is the son of the first accused. There is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. 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 the petitioner will be justified.

¶31

In the result, this application stands allowed, and the respondent is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.1338 of 2016 of Mattanchery Police Station on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Mattanchery Police Station, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following further conditions;

¶32

i. The petitioner shall report before the

¶33

Investigating Officer on every Tuesday between 9.00 a.m. and

¶34

¶35

B.A No.6917 of 2016

¶36

11.00 a.m. for three months, and thereafter as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶37

ii. The petitioner shall not intimidate or

¶38

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

¶39

iii. The petitioner shall not get involved in any

¶40

other offence of similar nature while on bail.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶43

rkj

¶44

//TRUE COPY//

¶45

P.A. TO JUDGE

Firzad Ismail v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firzad Ismail v. the 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

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