Allowed

Rashid v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Feb 2017Crl.MC/858/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge bench allowed petitioners to release vehicles (motorcycle and car) that were the subject of investigation in murder cases, setting aside lower court orders dismissing their custody applications. Directions given to execute bonds on sureties and adhere to conditions before release.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; vehicles released subject to conditions including execution of bonds for Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties each.

Rashid Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/27TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 858 of 2017 ()

¶6

-------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 26/2017 of J.M.F.C.,TALIPARAMBA DATED 13-01-2017 CRIME NO. 502/2016 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION , KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

RASHID S/O.UMMER, AGED 36 YEARS, KALLOORIYAKATHU HOUSE, MUYYAM, TALIPARAMBA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ABOOBACKER SIDDIQUE, S/O.ABU, KODIYIL HOUSE, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU SMT.S.SEETHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI AMJAD ALI

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-02-2017 ALONG WITH CRL.M.C.NO.869 OF 2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.MC.No. 858 of 2017 ()

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

ANNEXURE 1 : THE COPY OF PETITION IN CMP 26/2017 DT 3-1-2017 ON THE FILE OF JFMC, TALIPARAMBA.

¶18

ANNEXURE 2 : THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13-1-2017 IN CMP 26/2017 IN CRIME NO.502/2016 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF JFMC, TALIPARAMBA.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶20

True Copy / P A to Judge

¶21

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶22

=================

¶23

Crl.M.C.Nos.858 and 869 of 2017

¶24

=================

¶25

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2017

¶26

COMMON ORDER

¶27

Petitioners herein had filed C.M.P.Nos.26 of 2017 and 27 of 2017 in Crime No.502 of 2016 of Taliparamba Police Station for offence punishable under section 302 IPC seeking interim custody of a motor cycle and a car involved in the above crime.

¶28

Both the petitioners are not the accused in that crime. According to them, they are not involved in any other crime and they have not voluntarily handed over the vehicles to the accused for committing any crime. The court below, by two separate orders, dismissed the application on the basis of the report of the SHO that the vehicles were required for the investigating agency by the purpose of investigation. Petitions were dismissed, reserving the right of the petitioners to move the appropriate authority.

¶29

When the matters were taken up, learned Public Prosecutor in both cases submitted that the investigation in relation to the respective vehicles is over and further custody is not required. In the light of above, I am inclined to allow the Crl.M.Cs setting aside the impugned orders and directing the release of the respective vehicles involved in both the petitions subject to the

¶30

Crl.M.C.Nos.858 and 869 of 2017

¶31

¶32

following conditions.

¶33

(i) Petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.858 of 2017 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.75,000/(Rupees seventy five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the trial court. Petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.869 of 2017 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court below.

¶34

(ii) Petitioners shall undertake that they will not alienate, hand over possession to third parties or cause any damage to respective vehicles and to produce the vehicle as and when called for in the same condition, in which it is released except with natural wear and tear.

¶35

(iii) The vehicles will not be involved in any other crime.

¶36

(iv) The petitioners shall produce the photographs of the respective vehicles in Court. On satisfying the above conditions, vehicles shall be forthwith released to the petitioners herein.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶39

Sbna/16/2/17

¶40

True Copy / P A to Judge

Rashid v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thankappan Vs State of Kerala

Jnanesh Bangera Vs the State of Kerala

Shibu Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Midhun P Vs State of Kerala

Afsal Vs State of Kerala