Dismissed

Shabeeb Rahman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Oct 2018Bail Appl./5555/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the second accused in a case involving affray and grievous hurt, the High Court of Kerala observed that the applicant had criminal antecedents and was involved in separate heinous crimes. The court refused pre-arrest bail and directed the applicant to surrender to seek regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail not granted; applicant directed to surrender for regular bail consideration.

Shabeeb Rahman Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 20TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5555 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 242/2018 OF NILAMBUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/2nd ACCUSED :

¶8

SHABEEB RAHMAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY POOLAKKULANGARA HOUSE, VALLAPPUZHA, NILAMBUR RAILWAY STATION P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

BY SRI C N PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

ORDER

¶15

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

¶16

The applicant herein is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.242 of

¶17

2018 of the Nilambur Police Station. In the aforesaid crime, he is

¶18

the accused of having committed offences punishable under

¶19

Section 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Bail Appl..No. 5555 of 2018

¶21

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that accused Nos.1 to 3 entered into the hotel of the de facto complainant and took food and thereafter picked up a quarrel. When amount was demanded, they assaulted the de facto complainant and inflicted injuries.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant asserts that the main allegations are levelled against the 1^st accused. It is further submitted that the applicant is a person with no criminal antecedents and his custodial interrogation, in the facts and circumstances, is unwarranted.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the events were recorded in the camera placed in the hotel. The witnesses have clearly stated about the role played by the applicant herein. Finally, it is submitted that the applicant is a person with criminal antecedents and he is involved in two heinous crimes involving offence under Section 307 of the IPC.

¶25

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role assigned to the applicant and his antecedents, I am not persuaded to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the applicant herein.

¶26

Bail Appl..No. 5555 of 2018

¶27

¶28

I direct the applicant to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the court having jurisdiction and seek regular bail. If an application for bail is filed, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed expeditiously and on its merits.

¶29

This application is dismissed.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶32

DSV/15/10/18

¶33

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

Shabeeb Rahman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shabeeb Rahman 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

Balachandran C. Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs the State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Jose P.P. Vs State of Kerala

Geralad Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala