Dismissed

Yahiya v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jan 2016Bail Appl./8492/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court dismissed a pre-arrest bail application filed by multiple accused persons charged with offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w 149 in an affray case. The court held the injury report and use of weapons indicated an unsuitable case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Breast application for pre-arrest bail dismissed; petitioners remain in custody.

Yahiya Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2016/1ST MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8492 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 1042/2015 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 & 5 TO 8:

¶8

1. YAHIYA, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED, FAHIRA MANZIL, BALLA KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD P.O., BALLA GRAMAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. MOHAMED AJMAL U.K., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. U. K. KUNJAHAMMED, AJMAL MAHAL, BALLA KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD P.O., BALLA GRAMAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

3. MUNEER K.H., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER K. H., KUTCHAMATH HOUSE, BALLA KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD P.O., BALLA GRAMAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

4. JUNAID A. B., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER A B, A B HOUSE, BALLA KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD P. O., BALLA GRAMAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶12

5. UMMERUL FAROOQ K. H., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.HUSSAIN KUNNIL, SHEREEFA MANZIL, BALLA KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD P. O., BALLA GRAMAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶13

6. SHAFEEK K. K., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL HASSAN K K, NAVAB MANZIL, BALLA KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD P. O., BALLA GRAMAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶14

7. UMAIR K. K., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, BALLA KADAPPURAM, KANHANGAD P. O., BALLA GRAMAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.T.N.SURESH

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶17

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

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.S.ABDUL KAREEM

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

msv/

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

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

B.A.No.8492 of 2015

¶24

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

¶25

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2016

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8 in Crime No.1042 of 2015 of Hosdurg Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

The allegation of the prosecution is that due to previous enmity on 09.12.2015 at about 9.45p.m., the accused formed into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and attacked the de facto complainant. Claiming that there was a dispute relating to unauthorized construction by the de facto complainant and that the petitioners are students and are sought to be wrongly implicated for having objected to the construction, seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

In the impleading petition, learned senior counsel for the de facto complainant had specifically contended that the petitioners are not students as claimed and the accused by name

¶31

B.A.8492/15

¶32

¶33

Ajmal, who is the second petitioner herein, is involved in four other cases and Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceeding have been initiated against him. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the second accused is involved in two other cases and sixth accused is involved in yet another case.

¶34

The wound certificate shows that the de facto complainant sustained a lacerated wound on the pinna 2x1.5cm, contusion of left infra ortritel area and contusion of the nasal bridge. It was suspected that there was a loss of hearing capacity of the left ear also. It is alleged that the first accused had used a knife and the remaining petitioners had used sticks. Having regard to the nature of injuries caused, the use of a weapon and all other attending circumstances, I feel that this is not a fit case for granting of pre-arrest bail.

¶35

The anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶38

Sbna/21/1/16

¶39

True Copy

¶40

P A to Judge

Yahiya v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yahiya 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

Haridasan Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Roy Vs State of Kerala

Akhilnath Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Sunilkumar Vs State of Kerala