Allowed

Hanis M.B. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2017Bail Appl./2588/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail to the first petitioner (a travel agency owner) under Section 438 CrPC but dismissed the application regarding his workers who were already arrested, considering their bail application infructuous. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions regarding investigation, vehicle production, and passport surrender.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for 1st petitioner subject to conditions; application dismissed for 2nd to 4th petitioners as infructuous.

Hanis M.B. Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/17TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2588 of 2017 ()

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶7

HANIS M.B. AGED 37 YEARS S/O. BASHEER, BSH MANZIL, PAPPALA, KILIMANOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 601.

¶8

RENJITH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. RAJENDRAN, AJI BHAVAN, THATTATHUMALA P.O,

¶9

KILIMANOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 601.

¶10

ANSAR AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL VAHID, CHARUVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, THATTATHUMALA P.O,KILIMANOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 601.

¶11

ANOOP, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, ATHIRA BHAVAN, PULINATH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.M.ZIYAD

¶13

SRI.T.A.PRAKASH

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS:

¶15

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

¶16

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.690001

¶17

MOHAMMED SHAN, SHAN BHAVAN, THEKKADA, VEMBAYAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001

¶18

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.MAYA M.N.

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 0706-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

SKS

¶21

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶22

B.A. No. 2588 of 2017

¶23

Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2017

¶24

ORDER

¶25

1.This application is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶26

2.The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime No. 639 of 2017 of Chadayamangalam Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 365, 323, 341, 324 r/w Section 149 of the IPC.

¶27

3.It has to be noted at the outset itself, that at the time of filing of the application, crime had not been registered. It is now informed that the petitioners 2 to 4 were arrested by the Police subsequently and insofar as they are concerned, this application has become infructuous.

¶28

4.The 1^st petitioner is running a travel agency. The accused Nos. 2 to 4 are his workers. Some money was due to the

¶29

B.A.No.2588 of 2017 2

¶30

1^st petitioner from the 1^st informant, one Shan. According to him, on 04.04.2017, he was abducted by the petitioners in a car bearing registration No. KL-16 P 9736 and he was assaulted inside the car. Somehow or the other, he managed to escape from the custody of the accused on the same day itself. After about three days, he approached the Police and gave information based on which the instant crime was registered.

¶31

5.The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st petitioner would refer to the FI statement and would contend that there is a long and unexplained delay in setting the law in motion. It is also submitted that according to the de facto complainant, though he had escaped from the custody of the accused on 04.04.2017 itself, after having sustained grave injuries, he did not seek treatment or approach the Police.

¶32

6.The learned Public Prosecutor has handed over the case

¶33

B.A.No.2588 of 2017 3

¶34

diary for perusal. Though the de facto complainant asserts that he was brutally assaulted and some substance was rubbed all over his body, the case diary does not reveal that he had sustained any injuries. Furthermore, I note that there is an unexplained delay in setting the law in motion. Having regard to the nature and gravity of allegations, the delay and other facts and circumstances, it appears that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. However, the 1^st petitioner will have to appear before the officer concerned and produce the vehicle, which was allegedly used for commission of offence, before the Investigating Officer. The application insofar as it concerns the petitioners 2 to 4 will stand dismissed.

¶35

7.Having regard to the above, this application is allowed, subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(i) The 1^st petitioner shall appear before the

¶37

B.A.No.2588 of 2017 4

¶38

Investigating Officer within seven days from today and shall undergo interrogation. He shall also produce the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL16 P 9736 before the investigating officer. If he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶39

(ii)The 1^st petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every first and third Saturdays for two months or till the final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶40

(iii)The 1^st petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶41

(vii)The 1^st petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court concerned or if he does not have one, he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release.

¶42

(vi)The 1^st petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶43

B.A.No.2588 of 2017 5

¶44

(viii) If he surrenders before the Magistrate, this order shall not be applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

¶45

(ix) In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the concerned court on being noticed of that fact will be empowered to cancel the bail.

¶46

sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶47

SKS

¶48

//TRUE COPY//

¶49

P.A. TO JUDGE

Hanis M.B. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanis M.B. 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

Lizzy Thomas Vs State of Kerala

K.C. Lakshman Raj Vs State of Kerala

Shemeer Vs State of Kerala

Madhu Vs State of Kerala

M.K. Dhanil Vs State of Kerala

Asbir P.K Vs State of Kerala