Allowed

Shafi K.B. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jan 2018Bail Appl./198/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to two accused facing charges under the IPC for assaulting and trespassing. The Court held custodial interrogation was not imperative and prescribed conditions for bail, including appearance for interrogation and compliance with investigations.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions including appearance for investigation, execution of bond with sureties, non-inducement, and absence from similar offences.

Shafi K.B. Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 9TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 198 of 2018 ----------------------CRIME NO. 861/2017 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. .....

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

¶7

1 SHAFI K.B., S/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT 7/356, AKG NAGAR, PUTHIGE P.O., KUMBLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶8

2 SHAHSAD M., S/O. ABDUL KHADER, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOLLAMADKAM HOUSE, ANGADIMUGAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU, SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI.

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE::

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU. S.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶16

B.A.No.198 of 2018

¶17

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.861 of 2017 of the Kumbala Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 354, 452 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶21

3.Allegation is that on 30.12.2017, the petitioners herein along with 10 others trespassed into the residential home of the informant and pushed her to the wall. It is further alleged that the petitioners herein also assaulted one Abdul Kareem who was found in the company of the de facto complainant.

¶22

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the neighbours of the de facto complainant whose husband is abroad. As they had close association with the husband of the de facto complainant, they had questioned

¶23

B.A.No.198 of 2018 2

¶24

the informant when Abdul Kareem was found in the house very often. This irritated the complainant to lodge a false complaint against the petitioners is the submission.

¶25

5.The learned Public prosecutor on instructions submitted that this is a classic case of moral policing. It is submitted that the petitioners had absolutely no business to question the informant or the person who was present in her house. However, it is submitted that the petitioners are not persons with criminal antecedents and they are living in the near vicinity. It is also submitted that no injuries were sustained either by the de facto complainant or the other person who were found in the house.

¶26

6.I have considered the submissions advanced and I have gone through the case diary as well.

¶27

7.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the materials in support thereof, the antecedents of the petitioners and the attendant facts, it does not appear that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is imperative for an effective investigation .

¶28

8.In the result, this petition is allowed. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions.

¶29

B.A.No.198 of 2018 3

¶30

i).The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶31

ii)The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶32

iii)The petitioners 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.

¶33

iv)The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶34

v) If they surrender before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶35

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶36

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶37

IAP //True Copy\ P.A to Judge

Shafi K.B. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shafi K.B. v. the 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

Muhammed Shafi Vs State of Kerala

Saidalavi Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Mohammed Shereef A.P. @ Kuttappi Vs State of Kerala

Sugathan Vs State of Kerala

Kumar Raja Alias C H Raja Vs M/S.Paresh Agro Industries