Allowed

Sajeer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Mar 2017Bail Appl./281/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, through J. K. Abraham Mathew, disposed of Bail Application No. 281 of 2017. The petitioners, accused in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 354, and 452 IPC, sought anticipatory bail. The petitioner argued that allegations were false and detention was unnecessary. The Court allowed the application, imposing standard bail conditions includin

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; petitioners released on bail after interrogation on bond of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties for like sums.

Sajeer Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2017/2ND CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 281 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 2021/2016 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

1. SAJEER, S/O.MOHAMMED YOOSAF, AGED 40 YEARS, SAMEER MANZIL, THALAVARAMBU, MANKODE VILLAGE, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. AMLAD, S/O.MOHAMMED YOOSAF, AGED 34 YEARS, VADAKKUMKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, THALAVARAMBU, MANKODE VILLAGE, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU

¶11

SMT.S.SEETHA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S) & STATE :

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE S.I. OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

*** ADDITIONAL R2 IMPLEADED**

¶15

2. THAJUNNISA, W/O. HASHIM, AGED 34 YEARS, SHYAM MANZIL, THALAVARAMBU, MANKODE P.O., MANKOD VILLAGE, KADAKKAL.

¶16

ADDITIONAL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 28.02.2017 IN CRL.M.A.NO. 1543 OF 2017.

¶17

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

B.A.No.281 of 2017

Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2017

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶26

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in

¶27

Crime No.2021/2016 of Kadakkal Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 354 and 452 IPC. The prosecution case is that they trespassed into the house of the first informant, uttered obscene words and assaulted her husband.

¶28

The learned counsel submits that the

¶29

allegations are false.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation revealed that the offence under Section 326 IPC has also been committed. The medical evidence proves that there was an injury to the membrane of right eye of the first informant's husband.

¶32

¶33

B.A.No.281 2017

¶34

The learned counsel submits that the injury

¶35

was not sustained in this incident. It appears that detention of the petitioners is not necessary for effective investigation.

¶36

In the result, the application is allowed.

¶37

The petitioners shall be released on bail after interrogation on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if they are arrested by the investigating officer in connection with this case.

¶38

They shall not destroy or tamper with evidence. 3) They shall appear before the investigating

¶39

officer for interrogation if they are so required by him in writing.

¶40

They shall surrender their passport before the lower court concerned or if they do not have one they shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of their release.

¶41

They shall not get himself involved in any other criminal case while they are on bail.

¶42

They shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses.

¶43

¶44

B.A.No.281 2017

¶45

In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

¶46

the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in

¶47

accordance with the law.

Sd/-

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

JUDGE

// True Copy // P.A. to Judge

Sajeer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeer 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

Rajith Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs the State of Kerala

Jobin.P.v Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ajikumar Vs State of Kerala

Devaprasad Vs State of Kerala

Dr.K.R.Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala