Partly allowed

Kunjumoideen v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Apr 2018Crl.MC/835/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in part, dismissing the prayer to set aside the bail order. The court directed the Magistrate to incorporate mandatory bail conditions under sections 437(3) and 437(4) Cr.P.C. into the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed in part. The Magistrate is directed to incorporate mandatory conditions under Section 437(4) Cr.P.C. in the bail order.

Kunjumoideen Vs the 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 K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 835 of 2018

¶6

CRMP 85/2018 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT

¶8

KUNJUMOIDEEN, S/O ALIMOOPEN,AGED 76 YEARS,'ODUNGATHUVEETTIL' KOMBARA MARKET ROAD,ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM(CRIME NO.1659/2017,ERNAKULAM NORTH POLICE STATION).

¶13

3. SANDRA THOMAS, AGED 25 YEARS,D/O THOMAS,PALLICHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PACHALAM,ERNAKULAM.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.B. UDAYAKUMAR

¶15

R3 BY ADVS. SRI.ALAN PAPALI

¶16

SMT.O.V.BINDU SRI.J.VIMAL KUM.NIHARIKA HEMA RAJ

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

PBS

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 835 of 2018 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶22

ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.12.08.2017
ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1659/2017 OF THE ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION DTD.24.08.2017
ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.14.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE CHIEF JUCIDIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,ERNAKULAM IN MC NO.239/2017
ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.02.11.2017 IN WP(C)NO.32224/2017 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT
ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.10.01.2018 IN CRL.M.P.NO.85/18 IN CRIME NO.1659/17 OF E.T.NORTH POLICE STATION,ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGES

PBS 5/4/2018

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J.

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.835 of 2018

¶29

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2018

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶32

On the information given by the petitioner Crime No.1659 of 2017 of

¶33

Ernakulam Town North Police Station was registered against the third respondent and two others for the offence under Section 420 IPC. By the impugned order the learned Magistrate granted her bail subject to certain conditions. The prayer in this Crl.M.C is to set aside the order and direct detention of the third respondent.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the third respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

The learned Magistrate in his bail order has observed that the dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent is only a civil dispute prima facie. It is not proper for me to make any observation at this stage. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the third respondent and the Public Prosecutor that final report has already been filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is seen from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate failed to impose certain conditions which were mandatory under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. I do not find any ground to set aside the order granting bail. But the order will be modified in as much as the mandatory conditions also will be incorporated in it. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she will appear before the trial court and take fresh bail after she is served with summons. When she appears before the court and bail is granted the learned

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.835 of 2018 2

¶37

Magistrate shall incorporate the mandatory conditions under Section 437 Cr.P.C also.

¶38

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed in part.

¶39

The submission of the learned counsel for the third respondent that the third respondent will appear before the trial court and apply for fresh bail on receiving summons from it is recorded. The learned Magistrate is directed to incorporate in the bail order that may be passed by him the conditions mentioned in Section 437 (4) Cr.P.C.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶42

cms

¶43

/True copy/ P.S.to Judge

Kunjumoideen v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjumoideen 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

Shiju K. Vs Kurian Koshy

G.Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Junaid K.T Vs the Sub Inspector of Police Kuttiadi

Dipu Vs State of Kerala

Vinod P. George Vs State of Kerala

Sanoj K.G. Vs the Station House Officer