Allowed

Safeed a Rahim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Feb 2016Bail Appl./693/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to petitioners charged with affray and damaging a bus driver's vehicle. Bail was subject to appearance conditions, bond execution, and security deposit before the Magistrate. No serious bodily injuries were recorded.

What did the court decide?

Granted pre-arrest bail on conditions of appearance, bond execution of Rs.40,000 with sureties, and deposit of Rs.10,000 each.

Safeed a Rahim Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/15TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 693 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 200/2016 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. SAFEED A RAHIM, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIM, KATTUNGAL MANZIL, SAIF DALE, ASHRAMAM WARD, AVALUKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

2. ZIAD A RAHIM, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIM, KATTUNGAL MANZIL, SAIF DALE, ASHRAMAM WARD, AVALUKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.DARSAN SOMANATH

¶11

RESPONDENT :

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA.T.Y.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶17

B. A. No. 693 of 2016

¶18

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.200/2016 of Cherthala Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 332, 294(b) read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

¶21

The allegation of the prosecution is that, the defacto complainant, who is a Driver of a KSRTC Volvo bus, was driving it along the National highway from Kollam to Ernakulam. When it reached Cherthala, a car driven by the 1^st petitioner herein overtook the bus stopped in front of the bus and the petitioner and his brother who were travelling in the vehicle came out. It is alleged that, they abused him and the 2^nd accused broke the window glass of the driver seat with his hands and the 1^st accused hit on the right shoulder of the defacto complainant. The glass window costing around 6,000/- was damaged and the Driver was₹ taken to the hospital. Consequently, there was cancellation of the trip resulting in loss of 20,000/- to the Corporation. Crime was₹ registered and the petitioners seek bail.

¶22

The Out Patient Registration card issued by the Taluk

¶23

B. A. No. 693 of 2016

¶24

¶25

Head Quarters Hospital, Cherthala indicates that the defacto complainant was seen by the Doctor on the same day at 11.46 a.m. In that, there is also a reference that the petitioners assaulted him with reference to the vehicle number. No serious bodily injuries are seen recorded. It appears that the incident arose out of a road rage.

¶26

Though the conduct of the petitioners cannot be justified, having regard to the fact that allegation against the petitioners are sought to be established through the oral evidence, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners on the following conditions:

¶27

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigation Officer within 10 days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail, on each of the petitioner executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶28

(ii) Each of the petitioner shall deposit a sum of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, before

¶29

B. A. No. 693 of 2016

¶30

¶31

the jurisdictional Magistrate within 10 days from today. It is made clear that though the deposit is an essential condition of granting bail, it need not be simultaneous with the execution of the bond and need only be deposited within 10 days from today.

¶32

(iii) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant or the witnesses.

¶33

(iv) They shall appear before the Investigation Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶36

/true copy/

¶37

P. A. to Judge

¶38

Safeed a Rahim v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safeed a Rahim 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

Navas Vs State of Kerala

Dhanesh Vs State of Kerala

Subin Philip Vs State of Kerala

Shibin Vs State of Kerala

Nikhilnath Vs State of Kerala

Clency Fernado Vs State of Kerala