Allowed

Sinan.P.K., v. State House Officer

Kerala HC9 Apr 2019Bail Appl./172/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to four accused persons facing charges under various sections of the IPC including abduction and attempt to murder. The court observed that custodial interrogation was not necessary for the investigation and emphasized the delay in the FIR. Bail was granted subject to specific conditions including reporting without fail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners shall be released on bail after interrogation, subject to conditions to cooperate with investigation, attend the investigating officer on Saturdays, and not tamper with evidence.

Sinan.P.K., Vs State House Officer — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 172 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 12/2019 OF Thaliparamba Police Station , Kannur

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 SINAN.P.K.,AGED 24 YEARS,S/O.BEEFATHU, RESIDING AT H.NO.8/522, POOMANGALORAKATH KAPPALLI, FAROOQUE NAGAR, THALIPARAMBA(PO), KANNUR, PIN-670141.

¶9

2 IRSHAD.K.S.,AGED 26 YEARS,S/O.ISMAYIL.K.P, RESIDING AT RAMLA MAHAL, NELLIPPARAMBA, KUTTIYERI, KANNUR, PIN-670141.

¶10

3 MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA.M.P.,AGED 27 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED ALI,P.M.P HOUSE, FAROOQUE NAGAR(PO), THALIPARAMBA, MANNA, KANNUR, PIN-670141.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM SMT.NASEEHA BEEGUM P.S.

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 STATE HOUSE OFFICER, THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN-670141.

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

3 ADDL.R3. ASHIK,AGED 18 YEARS,S/O IBRAHIM, PAROL HOUSE, KAPPALAM, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08/02/2019 IN CRL.MA.01/2019)

¶17

BY ADVS.

¶18

SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SMT.M.N.MAYA-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶21

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..789/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

[ Bail Appl. 172/2019 ,Bail Appl..789/2019 ]

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶27

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶28

Bail Appl..No. 789 of 2019

¶29

CRIME NO. 12/2019 OF Thaliparamba Police Station , Kannur

¶30

PETITIONER/S:

¶31

MOIDU.A AGED 27 YEARS S/O. BASHEER.K., RUKIYABI MANZIL, FAROOQUE NAGAR P.O., THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR 670 141.

¶32

BY ADVS. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SMT.K.S.SINDHU SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL SRI.VIMAL VIJAY SRI.V.KRISHNADAS (K-541)

¶33

RESPONDENT/S:

¶34

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶35

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..172/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

¶37

[ Bail Appl. 172/2019 ,Bail Appl..789/2019 ]

¶38

ORDER

¶39

Petitioners in BA 172/2019 are accused 1 to 3 and petitioner in BA 789/2019 is the 4^th accused in crime no.12/2019 of Thaliparamba police station. FIR was registered against them under Secs 325, 341, 367 and 506 of IPC read with IPC 34. It is submitted that subsequently Sec.307 of IPC has also been added. The petitioners seek bail under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C.

¶40

Prosecution case goes as follows: It all happened at 7.30 p.m on 22.12.2018. The petitioners were on inimical terms with the first informant. It was so because the first informant used to chat with a girl, a relative of accused 1 to 3. Therefore the petitioners abducted the first informant and took him in a car to the house of the aforesaid girl. The petitioners attacked and caused severe injuries to the first informant.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the first informant and the learned public prosecutors.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there has been a delay of 11 days in lodging the FI statement. It is also submitted that no material is available with the prosecution to contend for any grievous hurt caused to the first informant. Sec.367 of IPC can have application only if the subject of abduction is subjected to grievous hurt, slavery et cetera. Both the learned

¶43

¶44

[ Bail Appl. 172/2019 ,Bail Appl..789/2019 ]

¶45

counsel submit that mere hospitalisation for two months is not sufficient to find any grievous hurt. It is also their submission that the documents in the hands of the learned public prosecutors only suggest treatment and surgery for hernia. Although a definite finding is not expected at this stage of the case, the submissions cannot be brushed aside. I do not find custodial interrogation necessary for an effective investigation of the case. I am therefore inclined to allow the applications.

¶46

The applications are allowed. If arrested in connection with crime no.12/2019 of Thaliparamba police station, the petitioners shall be released on bail, after interrogation, if any, on each of them executing a bond for Rs 75,000/- (seventy five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation. They shall make themselves available for interrogation if so required by the investigating officer. The petitioners shall report to the investigating officer between 10 am and 11 am on every Saturday for a period of two months or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. The petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence witnesses. Nor shall they destroy or tamper with evidence. The court/magistrate having jurisdiction is hereby empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law if any of the conditions aforementioned is violated. If the petitioners surrender before the magistrate, this order will cease to

¶47

¶48

[ Bail Appl. 172/2019 ,Bail Appl..789/2019 ]

¶49

have effect and the learned magistrate will pass appropriate orders

¶50

as if this order has not been passed.

¶51

SD/-

¶52

A.M.BABU

¶53

Sks/9.4.2019 JUDGE

Sinan.P.K., v. State House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sinan.P.K., v. State House Officer

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

Subash Vs State of Kerala

Martin.a.P Vs State of Kerala

Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Nizamudheen Vs State of Kerala

Faisal, Vs State of Kerala

Senthil Kumar P Vs State of Kerala