Allowed

Sumayya Rahim v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Sept 2018Bail Appl./5188/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail to two accused persons alleged of affixing false number plates to evade a finance company, granting bail subject to specific conditions given that custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail allowed. Applicants to appear before IO within ten days. Bail on bond of Rs 50,000 each with sureties, subject to specified conditions.

Sumayya Rahim Vs the 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 4TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5188 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 590/2018 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

¶8

1 SUMAYYA RAHIM, AGED 40, W/O RAHIM, KALLINGAL HOUSE,ULAYANNOOR PO, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

2 SHAKKELLA LATHEEF, AGED 45, KALLATHINGAL HOUSE, CHANGAMANAD,ALUVA, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA:5188/18

O R D E R

This application is filed under §438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶19

The applicants herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 590/2018, registered at the East Police Station, Thrissur, for offences punishable under §§ 468 and 471 of IPC.

¶20

According to the prosecution, information was received that a Honda City car and a Hyundai Grand i10 car, both sporting the same number plates, were parked in the parking area of “Casino Hotels”, Thrissur. The vehicles were taken into custody and the accused, who were apparently the owners of the vehicle, were summoned. On investigation, it was revealed that the number-allotted to the Hyundai car was PY-03 A-1897 and a false number plate was affixed to avoid seizure of the vehicle by the finance company.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicants are ladies and they are innocent of all allegations. According to the

¶22

BA:5188/18

¶23

¶24

learned counsel, the applicants are persons with no criminal antecedents and prays that they be spared from the rigours of custodial interrogation.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the allegations are grave.

¶26

I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶27

Both the vehicles were seized and it was found that the Honda car was sporting the original number-plate. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the applicants and the stage of investigation, I am of the view that that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶28

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 Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However,

¶29

BA:5188/18

¶30

¶31

the above order shall be subject to the following

¶32

conditions:

¶33

(i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶34

ii) They 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

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

¶36

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.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶39

Dxy

¶40

//True Copy// P.A.To Judge

Sumayya Rahim v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumayya Rahim 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

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Divya Vs State of Kerala

Prasanth C.K. Vs State of Kerala

Mansoor Vs State of Kerala

Seon Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Subhash Kumar Vs the State of Kerala