Allowed

Abdulla v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2016Bail Appl./891/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted bail to two accused petitioners charged with sections 324, 294, 506, 308 IPC in a private prosecution case arising from a dispute over pathway widening. The court noted mutual injuries and granted bail subject to conditions and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Grant of bail subject to execution of bonds with sureties, appearance before investigation officer on specified Mondays, Saturdays and restriction on intimidating witnesses.

Abdulla Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/19TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 891 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 42/2016 OF VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. ABDULLA, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 39 YEARS, MANANTHALA HOUSE, CHEEKKODE, VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. ABDUTTY @ ABDURAHIMAN, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 66 YEARS, MANANTHALA HOUSE, CHEEKKODE, VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 640.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y. LALIZA.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶18

B. A. No. 891 of 2016

¶19

Dated this the 9^th day of March, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 42/2016 of Vazhakkad Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 324, 294, 506, 308 read with 34 IPC.

¶22

The allegation of the prosecution is that, due to a dispute between the parties, who are neighbours, regarding widening of an existing pathway, on 20.01.2016 at about 1.45 p.m., the accused pelted stones at the defacto complainant and hit him with a back side of a spade. He sustained injuries and was taken to the hospital.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the incident was an offshoot of a dispute of civil nature. However, it was further contended that, on the same day of the incident, the 1^st petitioner was injured, taken to the hospital and seen by the Doctor on the next day as indicated in Annexure A. In that, there is a reference that the defacto complainant had hit on the head with an axe. Corresponding injuries on the backside of head and swelling are indicated, though minor. However, the fact that there was an injury on the head cannot be easily brushed aside.

¶24

¶25

B. A. No. 891 of 2016

¶26

On the other hand, the wound certificate of the defacto complainant indicates that, he has sustained a lacerated wound 5x3x2 cm on the occipito parietal area with an abrasion on the forearm and also on the leg. Though on a comparative evaluation of the corresponding injuries it may appear that, the defacto complainant herein had sustained slightly substantial injury, I feel that it cannot be the criteria, since both sides have exchanged blows and corresponding injuries were found on the head of both. The weapon used in the present case has been recovered, as seen from the seizure mahazar. Parties are neighbours and the incident was a sequel to a civil dispute.

¶27

Having regard to these facts, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners on the following conditions:

¶28

(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.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶29

(ii) They shall appear before the Investigating

¶30

B. A. No. 891 of 2016

¶31

¶32

Officer on all Mondays and Saturdays between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of execution of the bond as above.

¶33

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

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶36

/true copy/

¶37

P. A. to Judge

¶38

Abdulla v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdulla 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

Baiju Vs State of Kerala

Krishnankutty Vs State of Kerala

Amal Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

Sreeni Vs State of Kerala

Jijo.P.T Vs State of Kerala

Sathyajith. P Vs State of Kerala