Allowed

Thaha K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2017Bail Appl./41/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

TheHigh Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by eight accused persons in a criminal case involving kidnapping and assault. It granted bail to seven petitioners but kept the sixth (already arrested) excluded, directing interrogation before release and imposing standard bail conditions. No relief was granted to the sixth petitioner in this order. The order is 'allowed in pa

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioners 1 to 5 and 7 to 8 subject to interrogation, bond of Rs.25,000 each with two solvent sureties, and conditions to appear for interrogation and not interfere with witnesses or

Thaha K Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | 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 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/18TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 41 of 2017 () -----------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO. 1215/2016 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 8:

¶8

1. THAHA K., AGED 27 S/O. KUNJABDULLA HAJI, BAITHUL MUNA, ATHINHAL, MANIKOTH P.O, KASARAGODE PIN - 671 316.

¶9

2. NAEEM AHMED C.K., AGED 23, KUNJIMOIDHEEN, AMINA MANZIL, ATHINHAL, MANIKOTH P.O, KASARAGODE PIN - 671 316.

¶10

3. MUHAMMED SALEEM M., AGED 25, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, RAHIBAN HOUSE,

¶11

ATHINHAL, MANIKOTH P.O, KASARAGODE PIN - 671 316.

¶12

4. MUHAMMED RASHID K., AGED 33, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, DHAYA MANZIL

¶13

ATHINHAL, MANIKOTH P.O, KASARAGODE PIN - 671 316.

¶14

5. SAINUL ABIDEEN K.M., AGED 26, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI, PONKAVANAM MANZIL, ATHINHAL, MANIKOTH P.O., KASARAGODE PIN - 671 316.

¶15

6. RAMEESUDHEEN K., AGED 28, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, DHAYA MANZIL,

¶16

ATHINHAL, MANIKOTH P.O, KASARAGODE PIN - 671 316

¶17

7. SHAFEEQ M., AGED 28, S/O. ABDULLAH, MOVVAL HOUSE,

¶18

ATHINHAL, MANIKOTH P.O., KASARAGODE PIN - 671 316.

¶19

¶20

Bail Appl..No. 41 of 2017 () ----------------------------

¶21

8. LLYAS P., AGED 28, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, SABITH MANZIL, ATHINHAL, MANIKOTH P.O., KASARAGODE PIN - 671 316

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------

¶24

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE (CRIME NO.1215/16) HOSDURG POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶25

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI

¶26

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶29

B.A.No.41 of 2017

¶30

Dated this the 9^th day of March, 2017

¶31

ORDER

¶32

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶33

Petitioners are accused 1 to 8 in Crime No.1215 of 2016 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragode district registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 and 363 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶34

The prosecution case is that they kidnapped the victim and assaulted him with sticks causing him serious injuries. Learned senior counsel submits that the allegations are false.

¶35

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

¶36

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the 6^th petitioner has already been arrested.

¶37

It is not revealed from the materials relied on by the prosecution that the victim sustained any grievous hurt. The victim did not have serious injury. So it appears that detention of the petitioner is not necessary for effective investigation.

¶38

In the result, this application is allowed in part.

¶39

Petitioners 1 to 8 except 6^th petitioner will be released on bail after interrogation on their executing a bond for Rs.Twenty five thousand each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if they are arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶40

B.A.No.41 of 2017 2

¶41

They shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation on

¶42

7^th and 14^th days after their release.

¶43

1. They shall not get themselves involved in any other criminal case

¶44

while they are on bail.

¶45

1. They shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses.

¶46

1. They shall not destroy or tamper with the evidence.

¶47

They shall surrender their passports 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.

¶48

If the petitioners surrender before the Magistrate this order is not applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

¶49

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶50

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶51

cms

¶52

/True copy/ P.S.to Judge

Thaha K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thaha K 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

Yogidas Vs State of Kerala

V.I.Yamuna Vs State of Kerala

Vinu Vs the State of Kerala

Abdul Jaleel Vs State of Kerala

Abid T.A Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan T.A Vs State of Kerala