Allowed

Muhammed Kunhi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jan 2018Bail Appl./83/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Kerala High Court allowed bail to accused No.1 in a case involving stones pelted and bomb blast in a political dispute under IPC and Explosives Act, by applying for bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond Rs 50000 with two sureties subject to appearance before IO Saturdays for 2 months and not intimidating witnesses or entering police limit.

Muhammed Kunhi Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 22ND POUSHA, 1939 Bail Appl..No. 83 of 2018

¶4

CRIME NO. 411/2017 OF KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶6

MUHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. MOOSA, KARUTHANDEERAKATH(H) NADUVIL, NEW NADUVIL AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE

¶8

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031, (CRIME NO.411/2017 OF KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT)

¶10

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

mbr/

¶13

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶14

B.A.No.83 of 2018

¶15

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2018

¶16

ORDER

¶17

1.The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.411 of 2017 of the Kudiyanmala Police Station. The aforesaid Crime has been registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 324 & 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 and 5 of the Explosives Substances Act. He seeks for his enlargement on bail.

¶18

2.There were disputes between two political factions. The petitioner owed allegiance to the Muslim League. Certain workers of the Muslim league launched an attack in the Party office of the CPIM. Against the said incursion, a protest was held on 3.12.2017. It is alleged that certain workers of the Muslim league pelted stones at the workers of the CPIM and also blasted a country bomb causing injuries.

¶19

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner asserts that at the instance of a Muslim league worker, Crime No.410 of

¶20

B.A.No.83 of 2018 2

¶21

2017 was registered against the CPIM workers. It is submitted that the aforesaid Crime also involves offences under the Explosives Substances Act. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 5.12.2017 and has been languishing in custody since then.

¶22

4.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone through the case diary. It appears that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the investigation is almost complete.

¶23

5.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the period of incarceration undergone, the stage of investigation and other facts and circumstances, it does not appear that further detention of the petitioner is warranted.

¶24

In the result, this petition will stand allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶25

1). The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

¶26

2).The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for 2 months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶27

3). The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall

¶28

B.A.No.83 of 2018 3

¶29

he tamper with the evidence. 4). The petitioner shall not enter the limits of Kudiyanmala Police Station until the final report is laid before the court having jurisdiction.

¶30

5). The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

¶31

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.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶34

IAP

Muhammed Kunhi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Kunhi 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

Joseph @ Jose Vs State of Kerala

Rinoj Vs State of Kerala

Deepak.M.G Vs State of Kerala

Akash Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

Gireesh Vs State of Kerala