Dismissed

Shihab v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Apr 2017Bail Appl./1118/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The Court found involved petitioners were mentioned in the F.I.R. and case diary materials, noting discrepancies in medical evidence of one petitioner attempting to create favorable evidence, concluding it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Shihab Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/17TH CHAITHRA, 1939 Bail Appl..No. 1118 of 2017 () ------------------------------CRIME NO. 542/2016 OF THENHIPALAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶5

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶6

1. SHIHAB, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. AHAMAD, KARUVEETTIL HOUSE, PALLIKKAL. 2. SAIDALI HAJI, AGED 62 YEARS,S/O. KUNJAMOOTY, KALLOPURAM, PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM.

¶7

3. ABDUL SAMMAD, AGED 48 YEARS,S/O. VEERANKUTTY, PULAKKATHODI(H), PALLIKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM. 4. KARUVEETTIL MAMMAD, AGED 55 YEARS,S/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, ATHANIKKAL, PALLIKKAL.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANHIPALAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAJJU S.

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-04-2017, ALONG WITH BA. 1119/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶15

B.A.Nos.1118 & 1119 of 2017

¶16

Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2017

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶19

The petitioners are some of the accused in Crime No.542 of 2016 of Tenhipalam Police Station. The allegation is that while the victim were offering prayer in a mosque, the petitioners along with the co-accused who belong to rival group formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victims with dangerous weapons causing them injuries. One of them sustained fracture of a bone also. Learned counsel submits that the allegations against the petitioners are false.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

I have gone through the case diary. The involvement of the petitioners is specifically mentioned in the First Information Statement. Their involvement is also seen from the other materials available in the case diary. It appears that the second petitioner in B.A.No.1119 of 2017 got admitted in a hospital on 14.12.2016. His case is that he was under treatment in the hospital on the date of the occurrence. But the statement of the doctor shows that he was found missing from the hospital on several occasions during his treatment. It appears that his attempt was to create evidence in his favour. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail having regard to the nature of the incident.

¶22

In the result, this application is dismissed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶25

cms

¶26

/True copy/ P.S.to Judge

Shihab v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shihab 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

Chinju Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Jagadeesh Rai Vs State of Kerala

Alwin T.Abraham Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Pankajakshan Vs State of Kerala

Jihas Vs State of Kerala

Vinod.K Vs State of Kerala