Allowed

Abdul Arshad @ Arshad, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Mar 2019Bail Appl./1097/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising from charges of murder and theft, the High Court of Kerala allowed the application. The court noted the applicant had been in custody for over a year, had not entered the crime scene, and no case existed regarding his criminal antecedents. Bail was granted with a bond and strict conditions to ensure appearance and no tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on execution of bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties each for Rs. 1,00,000, subject to conditions of monthly appearance and non-interference with witnesses.

Abdul Arshad @ Arshad, Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1097 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.38/2018 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ABDUL ARSHAD @ ARSHAD, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBACKER, R/AT SHAFA MANZIL, KUNJAR, BELA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BEKAL POLICE STATION, KSARAGOD, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶12

SRI. SAJJU S., SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No. 1097 of 2019

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This application is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶18

The applicant herein is the 3^rd accused in SC No.654 of 2018 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kasargod, wherein he along with accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 face indictment under Sections 449, 302 and 397 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶19

On 17.1.2018, as previously planned, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 reached the house of one Subaida, who was aged about 60 years and was living alone at Checkkippalam, Kasaragod. While the accused Nos. 3 and 4 waited in the car parked outside, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 entered the house of Subaida. The 2^nd accused smothered Subaida with a cloth drenched with some stupefying substance while the 1^st accused held her hand. The deceased was rendered unconscious and thereafter the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are alleged to have committed theft of the ornaments worn by her. They escaped from the scene in the car driven by the 4^th accused. Later, the gold ornaments were sold for a sum of Rs. 1.18 lakhs and the proceeds were shared.

¶20

Bail Appl..No. 1097 of 2019

¶21

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant had no active role to play and he had not even entered the house. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested on 12.02.2018 and he has been languishing in custody for over a year. He would contend that the applicant is not involved in any other crimes and it is prayed that he be granted bail on conditions.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the 4^th accused in the aforesaid crime was granted pardon by the learned Magistrate on condition that he makes a full and true disclosure of the whole of circumstances. If released on bail, the applicant is likely to make himself scarce, contends the learned Public Prosecutor. He also pointed out that the 2^nd accused is a person with criminal antecedents and while he was being taken to Karnataka for producing before the Civil Judge, Sully, he had escaped from police custody.

¶24

I have considered the submissions advanced by both sides. Insofar as the applicant herein is concerned, the prosecution has no case that he had entered the home of the deceased. The applicant has been undergoing incarceration for over a year. There is no case

¶25

Bail Appl..No. 1097 of 2019

¶26

¶27

for the prosecution that the applicant is a person with criminal antecedents. Though the allegations are extremely grave, it cannot be forgotten that the main object of detaining in custody of a person charged with an offence is to secure his appearance for being dealt with according to law on the charge made against him. It has been held by the Apex Court that the principles which should guide the courts in the exercise of their discretion to grant bail or not are the probability of the accused appearing to take the trial and not his supposed guilt or innocence. Having regard to the period of detention undergone and also taking note of the fact that the investigation has been completed, I am of the view that by imposing stringent conditions to ensure the interest of the prosecution, the applicant can now be released on bail.

¶28

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶29

1). The applicant shall continue to appear before the Investigating Officer on the first Monday of every month between 9 am and 11 am, till the said condition is modified by the court having jurisdiction at the appropriate stage.

¶30

Bail Appl..No. 1097 of 2019

¶31

¶32

2). He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶33

3). He shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

¶34

4). He shall surrender his passport before the court below or if he does not have one, he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release. Application for release of the passport, if any, shall be considered by the Trial court at the appropriate stage.

¶35

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.

¶36

SD/-

¶37

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

IAP

¶40

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Abdul Arshad @ Arshad, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Arshad @ Arshad, 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

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Shajimon Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim Shameem Vs Abdul Rahiman

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

K.J.Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Antony Jayan Vs State of Kerala