Allowed

Rahim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 May 2018Bail Appl./2295/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed. The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The Court found the specific allegation against him of attacking with a stick to be vague, while serious charges were leveled against other accused. The Court granted pre-arrest bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted with bond of Rs.40,000 and sureties; must appear for interrogation and investigation; passport to be surrendered.

Rahim Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | 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 24TH DAY OF MAY 2018 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1940 Bail Appl..No. 2295 of 2018 -----------(CRIME NO.411/2018 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM)

¶5

PETITIONER/7TH ACCUSED:

¶6

RAHIM, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. DAVOOD RAVUTHAR, PEZHUMMOODU VEEDU, KARICHIRA, MUTHAYIL, MANKODE VILLAGE, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM RURAL, PIN-691536, KERALA STATE.

¶7

BY ADV.SRI.M.DINESH

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.

¶10

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. K. K. SHEEBA

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶13

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = B.A. No.2295 of 2018

¶14

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2018

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR, being Crime No.411 of 2018, registered with Kadakkal Police Station, for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 308 r/w Sec. 149 of the IPC. He has been arrayed as the 7^th accused in the said crime.

¶17

The prosecution allegation is that owing to previous enmity, the applicant along with rest of the accused intercepted the car in which the de facto complainant and others were travelling on 3.3.2018 at 9.30 p.m., and thereafter attacked them with weapons. Serious injuries were inflicted by accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the accused Nos. 3 to 6 are alleged to have attacked the de facto complainant and his friends with sticks. Insofar as the applicant herein is concerned, the allegation is that he attacked the victims with sticks.

¶18

BA.2295/18

¶19

-:2:-

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the allegations levelled against him are false and frivolous. According to the learned counsel, the accused Nos.3 & 5 against whom specific overt act has been alleged were granted regular bail by this Court by order dated 5.4.2018. The learned counsel would also refer to the order dated 9.4.2018 in B.A. No.2519 of 2018 to contend that the 6^th accused in the instant crime has been granted an order of anticipatory bail by this Court finding that there is no specific allegations against her.

¶21

The learned Public Prosecutor has very emphatically opposed the submissions. It is pointed that as against the applicant, there is allegation that he had assaulted the victim with a stick. The prosecution does not have a case that the applicant is a person with criminal antecedents.

¶22

I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced by both sides and have gone through the case diary which was made available.

¶23

It appears that very serious allegations have been levelled

¶24

BA.2295/18

¶25

-:3:-

¶26

against the accused Nos.1 to 5. Insofar as the applicant herein is concerned, though there is an allegation that he had assaulted the informant with a stick, it is vague in nature. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail by imposing appropriate conditions.

¶27

In the result, this application is allowed. The applicant shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶28

i)The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶29

ii)The applicant 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.

¶30

iii)The applicant shall not commit any similar offence

BA.2295/18

-:4:-

while on bail.

iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport before the court below or if he does not have one, he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release. Application for release of the passport, if any, shall be considered by the Trial court at the appropriate stage.

¶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

krj.24/5

¶38

//true copy//

¶39

P.A to Judge

Rahim v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahim 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

Jacob Mathi Vs State of Kerala

K.Madhusoodanan Master Vs State of Kerala

Jacob Mathai Vs the State of Kerala

O.K.Babu @ Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

K. Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Binu Peter Vs the State of Kerala