Partly allowed

Shafir v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 May 2018Bail Appl./2434/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for an unlawful assembly case, the Kerala High Court denied anticipatory bail to two accused facing severe injury allegations but granted bail to five others requiring them to undergo interrogation and cooperate with investigation within specific terms.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to applicants Nos. 2-7 to undergo interrogation and execute bond; dismissed for Nos. 1 and 4.

Shafir 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

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2018 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2434 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 75/2018 OF MEPPADI POLICE STATION , WAYANAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 2-8

¶8

1 SHAFIR, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, CHERIL HOUSE, MEPPADI, KOTTAPPDI VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2 RAFEEQUE, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.MAJEED, NELLATTUTHODUKKA HOUSE,

¶10

MEPPADI, KOTTAPPDI VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶11

3 SHANIF, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.EBRAHIM, KOBANEZHUTHA HOUSE,

¶12

MEPPADI, KOTTAPPDI VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶13

4 FASIL, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.IQBAL, MANDOTHIL HOUSE,

¶14

MEPPADI, KOTTAPPDI VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶15

5 SHANU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.KUNHALI, NELLATHUTHODUKKA HOUSE,

¶16

MEPPADI, KOTTAPPDI VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶17

6 SHANID, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.HAMZA, CHERUKADATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, MEPPADI, KOTTAPPDI VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶18

7 RAFI,AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, PODIKUNNATH HOUSE, MEPPADI, KOTTAPPDI VILLAGE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶19

BY ADVS.SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI SMT.T.RASINI

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶21

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

¶22

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU.S

¶23

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J

¶26

B.A No.2434 of 2018

¶27

Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2018

¶28

ORDER

¶29

1.This application is filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR, being Crime No.75 of 2018, registered with Meppadi Police Station, for offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 326 r/w Sec. 149 of the IPC. They have been arrayed as the accused Nos.2 to 8 in the said crime.

¶30

2.On 09.03.2018 at 1.00 a.m., the applicants along with the rest of the accused are alleged to have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and others and assaulted them with GI pipes and other weapons and caused injuries. The de facto complainant suffered a fracture of his little finger and as many as six others had sustained minor injuries.

¶31

3.The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the main overt act is attributed to the 1^st accused. A fight between two groups occurred in the course of a football

¶32

B.A No.2434 of 2018 2

¶33

match and the applicants herein had no role to play is the submission.

¶34

4.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that the applicant Nos.1 and 4, who are accused Nos. 2 and 5 were armed with weapons and specific overt acts have been alleged against them. Insofar as the applicants Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are concerned, it appears that the allegations are vague.

¶35

5.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the applicants, the severity of the injuries inflicted and attendant facts, I am of the considered view that the applicant Nos.1 and 4 are not entitled to the relief of pre-arrest bail. However, insofar as the applicant Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are concerned, I am of the view that custodial interrogation is unwarranted.

¶36

6.In the result, this application is partly allowed. The applicant Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 shall appear before the investigation 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.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The

¶37

B.A No.2434 of 2018

¶38

¶39

above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶40

i)The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

iv) If they intend to leave India, they shall seek previous permission from the court having jurisdiction.

¶44

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶45

jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶46

This application insofar as it concerns, applicant Nos. 1 and 4 will stand dismissed.

¶47

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶48

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶49

Shafir v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shafir 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

Josemon Simon Vs State of Kerala

M.K. Sajeev Vs State of Kerala

Sadanandan Vs State of Kerala

Jayaprasad Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs the State of Kerala

Nabeel Baker Assinar Vs the State of Kerala