Allowed

Muhammed Shahid v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jan 2016Bail Appl./8483/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application under Sections 379 IPC and Section 20 of the Protection of River Banks and Sand Act, granting bail subject to specific conditions despite the offense being non-bailable in nature.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to offer for identification, execution of bond of Rs. 40,000 with two sureties, appearing within 10 days, and refraining from threatening witnesses or committing new offenses.

Muhammed Shahid Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/16TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8483 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 980/2015 OF KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

MUHAMMED SHAHID, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED ALI, KADUNGANKUNNATH HOUSE, MAROOR P.O., VATTAKKULAM PANCHAYAT, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT :

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 676 505.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶17

B.A.No.8483 of 2015

¶18

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.980/2015 of Kutippuram Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 379 IPC and Section 20 of the Protection of River Banks and Sand Act.

¶21

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 16.11.2015 at about 3.30 pm, the accused was found illegally collecting and transporting river sand from Bharatapuzha river in a tipper lorry. He was intercepted and the crime was registered. The petitioner seems to have been escaped form the spot. He seeks bail.

¶22

Heard both sides and examined the records.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Having regard to the fact that the substantial part of the investigation is over with the search and seizure

¶24

and what remains is only identification of the accused, I

¶25

feel that custodial interrogation is not warranted. Hence

¶26

B.A.No.8483 of 2015

¶27

¶28

he is entitled for bail subject to the following conditions:

¶29

(a) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today and shall offer himself for interrogation. In the eventuality of he being arrested, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for `40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each.

¶30

(b) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other identical offence, and the involvement if any, will be a ground for seeking cancellation of bail.

¶31

(c) The petitioner shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the witnesses and shall also not interfere with the course of investigation.

¶32

The bail application is allowed.

¶33

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶34

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶35

Muhammed Shahid v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Shahid 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

Basurag T. Vs State of Kerala

K.Saiju Vs State of Kerala

K.J.Sanal Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Roshivi V.S. Vs State of Kerala

Kattukujan Vs State of Kerala

Suresh, C.NO.3211, Central Prison, Kannur Vs State of Kerala