Allowed

Muhammed Anas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2018Bail Appl./70/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam granted anticipatory bail to seven accused persons facing charge in a bakery assault case. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary despite allegations of mischief and loss, which had been compensated.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions including appearance before investigation officer within ten days and execution of bond.

Muhammed Anas 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 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 26TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 70 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.1589/2017 OF PANGODE POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 7:

¶8

1 MUHAMMED ANAS.,AGED 20 YEARS,

¶9

S/O. THAJUDEEN, KATTAKALIL VEEDU, KURINJAILAKKADU, MUTHUVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2 MUHAMMED SHAN.,AGED 21 YEARS,

¶11

S/O.YAHIYA, KALIYIL VEEDU, KURINJAILAKKADU, NEERUMANKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

3 MUHAMMED RASI, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. SAHID, RASI MANZIL, KURINJAILAKKADU, NEERUMANKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4 MUHAMMED SHAN, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. NUJUM NASIL MANZIL, KURINJAILAKKADU, NEERUMANKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

5 MUHAMMED IQBAL,AGED 22 YEARS,

¶15

S/O. ABDUL VAHAB, KALIYIL VEEDU, KURINJAILAKKADU, NEERUMANKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

6 MUHAMMED THANZEER.,AGED 22 YEARS,

¶17

S/O.THAJUDEEN, KATTAKALIL VEEDU, KURINJAILAKKADU, MUTHUVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶18

7 HUSSAIN.,AGED 27 YEARS,

¶19

S/O.ILLYAS., THADATHARIKATHU VEEDE, KURINJAILAKKADU, NEERUMANKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶20

BY ADV.SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)

¶21

RESPONDENT:

¶22

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

¶23

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.SAJJU

¶24

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

sts

¶26

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J

¶27

B.A No.70 of 2018

¶28

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2018

¶29

ORDER

¶30

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

¶31

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 7 in Crime No.1589 of 2017 of Pangode Police Station registered under Sections 142, 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324 and 427 of the IPC.

¶32

3.The informant in the instant case is one Pushparajan who was running a bakery at Pangode. The allegation is that on 15.12.2017 at 8.30p.m., the petitioners herein along with the co-accused entered the bakery and attacked one Nizamudeen who was in the bakery. It is alleged that after assaulting the aforesaid Nizamudeen, they committed mischief and caused a loss to the tune of Rs.15,000/-.

¶33

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the allegations. According to the learned counsel, at the instance of the 1^st petitioner herein Crime No.761/2016 was registered against the aforesaid Nizamudeen inter alia for offence under

¶34

B.A No.70 of 2018 2

¶35

Sec.308 of the IPC. The loss sustained to the informant has been compensated is the submission.

¶36

5.The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, Annexure-A2 crime was registered in the year 2016 and that would not give any advantage to the petitioners.

¶37

6.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. It appears from the case diary that mischief was caused to the shop room of the de facto complainant causing a loss to the tune of Rs.15,000/-. However, it appears that the said loss has been compensated. The case diary does not reveal that the aforesaid Nizamudeen had sustained any serious injuries.

¶38

7.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations and other facts and circumstances, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are uncalled for. Hence, I am inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

¶39

i). The petitioners 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

¶40

B.A No.70 of 2018

¶41

¶42

only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶43

ii)The petitioners 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 one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶44

iii)The petitioners 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.

¶45

iv)The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶46

v) If they surrender before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,

JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Muhammed Anas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Anas 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

Prof Capt. v.C.James Vs State of Kerala

Anuraj Manoharan Vs State of Kerala

Athul @ Monkuttan Vs State of Kerala

Raziya Salam Vs State of Kerala

Nujab Vs State of Kerala

Krishnendu Vs State of Kerala