Allowed

M.S. Faisal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jan 2016Bail Appl./8490/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner, the 4th accused in a rioting case, noting his overt act involved using a stick while others were more actively involved. Bail was granted onPolice. conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to execute a bond of Rs.45,000/- with two sureties, appear before Investigating Officer on Saturdays, surrender passport, and not interfere with investigation.

M.S. Faisal Vs State of Kerala — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/17TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8490 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 1042/2015 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION , KASARAGOD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/4TH ACCUSED :

¶8

M.S.FAISAL, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.M.S.MOIDEEN, M.S.MANZIL, BALLA KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD P.O., BALLA GRAMAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.N.SURESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

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

¶12

BY SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED, ADDITIONAL D.G.P

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

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

B.A.No.8490 of 2015

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is the 4^th accused in Crime No.1042 of 2015 of Hosdurg Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The allegation of the prosecution is that on 09.12.2015 at about 9.45 p.m., accused 1 to 8, in furtherance of their common object, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with stick and deadly weapons and committed rioting. It is alleged that they attacked the de facto complainant who sustained injury. The allegation is that the first accused had used a knife and remaining accused used sticks. Petitioner was arrested on 22.12.2015 and is in custody since then. He seeks bail.

¶23

The de facto complainant filed an application to get himself impleaded. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for the de facto complainant and learned Additional Director General of Prosecution. Examined the records.

¶24

B.A.8490/15

¶25

¶26

It appears that the overt act alleged against the 4^th accused is that he has used the stick. Main overt acts are alleged against the other accused. It is submitted by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution that other accused have not been arrested. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is running a shop nearby and that, there was an agitation going on against the de facto complainant and others. Without going into the merits of that submission, having considered the fact that the overt act alleged against the petitioner is rather minor, I am inclined to hold that the continued detention of the 4^th accused is not warranted. Hence, the application is allowed as follows.

¶27

(i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional magistrate.

¶28

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. for a period of two months from today or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶29

(iii) He shall also surrender his passport before the jurisdictional magistrate within ten days from today. Further orders regarding the release, if

¶30

B.A.8490/15

¶31

¶32

any, sought by the petitioner can be considered by the jurisdictional magistrate at appropriate stage on an application by the petitioner.

¶33

(iv) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or the witnesses nor shall he interfere in the process of investigation. (v) He shall not get involved in any other identical offences.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶36

Sbna 6/1/16

¶37

True Copy

¶38

P A to Judge

M.S. Faisal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S. Faisal 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

Mohammed Iqbal Vs State of Kerala

Binu Vs State of Kerala

Mani T a Vs State of Kerala

Abdu Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Sivarama Sinha Vs S.I. of Police