Allowed

Shihab v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2018Bail Appl./2177/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC filed by five accused persons charged with offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 IPC. The Court held that custodial interrogation was not necessitous given the nature of injuries and attendant facts, subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to appearing before IO within ten days, undergoing interrogation, executing a bond of Rs. 40,000 each with two sureties, and complying with specific conditions.

Shihab Vs 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

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2177 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 256/2018 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5

¶8

1 SHIHAB, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, SHIHAB MANZIL, PADAM P.O., PATHANAMPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2 SHEMEER AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM, SHEMEER MANZIL, UDAYANCHIRA, MANGODU P.O., PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3 AZEEB AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL LATHEEF, KODUMAN PURAYIDAM, KARAMOODU, KUNDAYAM P.O., PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

4 MUHAMMED SHA AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.SIRAJUDEEN, PUTHENPURAYIL, KUNDAYAM P.O., PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

5 AL-AMEEN AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MEERA SAHIB, AJMAL MANZIL, KUNDAYAM P.O., PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV.SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS & STATE:

¶15

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PATHANPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶16

2. STATE OF KERALA (RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031).

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

IAP

¶20

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶21

B.A. No.2177 of 2018

¶22

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2018

¶23

ORDER

¶24

1.This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

2.The applicants herein are the accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.256 of 2018 of the Pathanapuram Police Station, registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 308 and 506(ii) read with Section 149 of the IPC.

¶26

3.The prosecution allegation is that on 9.2.2018 at 10.30 pm, the applicants formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and his associates and attacked them with sticks.

¶27

4.The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicants are innocent. According to the learned counsel, the allegations are trumped up at the instance of the de facto complainant who is an influential person.

¶28

5.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone through

¶29

B.A.No.2177 of 2018 2

¶30

the case diary.

¶31

6.The wound certificate does not show that any serious injuries were sustained by the de facto complainant or others. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the nature of injuries inflicted, the antecedents of the applicants and attendant facts, I am of the view that their custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessitous.

¶32

7.In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants 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. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶33

(i)The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶34

ii)The applicants 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.

¶35

B.A.No.2177 of 2018 3

¶36

iii)The applicants shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶37

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.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶40

IAP //True Copy\

¶41

P.A to Judge

Shihab v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shihab 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

K.P. Preejith Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Vinil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs the State of Kerala

Anil Kumar. D Vs State of Kerala

Premkumar Vs the State of Kerala